
Open Name System: Extending DNS with the Blockchain - muneeb
http://opennamesystem.org
======
Cyther606
ONS is using Namecoin. Namecoin isn't free to use, is it? I'm curious to know
what is the business model behind this and onename.io, since they must pay to
add entries to the Namecoin blockchain.

------
higherpurpose
How is this different from DNSChain?

~~~
itistoday2
Having looked at it a bit more, here are some differences that I noticed:

    
    
        - This is written in python. DNSChain is written in CoffeeScript and runs
          on NodeJS.
        - This focuses on a command line utility, whereas with DNSChain you don't
          need one (just do an HTTP request).
        - opendig is like dig, so it doesn't provide your devices with DNS service
          (DNSChain does).
        - DNSChain focuses on security, signing of responses (though that's not
          implemented yet), replacing X509 PKI, unique anti-censorship features
          thanks to partnership with Unblock.us.org project, public key
          distribution for JavaScript apps... See the full list on the GitHub
          page.
        - ONS seems to be working on competing blockchain specifications to
          Namecoin's existing ones. DNSChain doesn't touch that.
        - DNSChain intends to add write access to the blockchain. It's not clear
          whether ONS project does or not.
        - Namecoin and DNSChain predate ONS and are active projects with different
          functionality that ONS seems to be replicating parts of, so I'm not
          sure why the authors chose to not collaborate with either of those
          projects and tread off on their own.

------
eric_bullington
This is a pretty direct challenge to keybase.io. I really, really like the
keybase implementation, but the one thing I wished for keybase was that it was
decentralized.

This has that.

However, in terms of the implementation itself, they still have a way to go
before they match keybase.

~~~
harveygold
> However, in terms of the implementation itself, they still have a way to go
> before they match keybase.

Care to explain how? They're the team behind onename.io and clearly seem to
have just as strong an implementation.

~~~
eric_bullington
I totally agree that onename.io has done a good job integrating that site with
Namecoin. However, with this new project ONS, I don't yet see a way to certify
all the social identities that Keybase supports, not to mention the attractive
user interface and convenient command line client of Keybase.

That said, it's a new project. I'm not saying onename.io won't accomplish this
(I hope they do!). I'm just saying they have a lot to do to match what Keybase
has.

------
andrewstuart2
In addition to creating a website for this, you really should submit it to the
IETF as an RFC. Get more engineers looking at it and improving it. If it ends
up getting enough backing, we might even have a new standard.

~~~
itistoday2
There are specifications that I'm sure will be submitted to IETF as RFCs (when
they're ready). You can seem them on Namecoin's wiki (scroll to the bottom):

[https://wiki.namecoin.info/index.php?title=Welcome](https://wiki.namecoin.info/index.php?title=Welcome)

------
misterbishop
This is the first attempt I've seen at using a blockchain for DNS. Looks like
an amazing solution to an increasingly desperate problem (as DNS takedowns are
the preferred method for internet censorship).

~~~
eric_bullington
One of the first uses of blockchain technology for a non-financial application
was an alternative domain name registration system called Namecoin, started
back in 2010 and still active.

Granted, that was an alternative domain name system, not an ICANN extension
like this one. And it used a separate blockchain and coin (Namecoin), not the
Bitcoin blockchain, which may be what you were referring to.

Nonetheless, I feel compelled to mention Namecoin in any discussion about the
history of blockchain technology and DNS. (incidentally, Namecoin was also the
first altcoin)

~~~
ryan-c
This thing runs on Namecoin, though that is buried in the documentation.

~~~
wcummings
Buried on the front page

~~~
ryan-c
Wasn't mentioned at all when my previous comment was posted.

------
martindale
Is Naval behind this?

------
gtirloni
Why should we base critical infrastructure on completely anonymous building
blocks? There is no mention about who is working on this, their motivations,
the domain is behind WhoisGuard, etc. Why is it so critical to become
anonymous as a developer in this case? Perhaps I'm missing something but is
the FBI/CIA going after anyone working on blockchain/crypto stuff nowadays?

It feels like asking for transparency, but only from others. Same reason I
can't truly trust Bitcoin, it's as shady as my bank's processes.

~~~
x1798DE
> _It feels like asking for transparency, but only from others. Same reason I
> can 't truly trust Bitcoin, it's as shady as my bank's processes._

What additional information would get get from the name of the people behind
this? How is Bitcoin in any way shady? It's an open protocol and most people
use open-source clients to access it. You (and anyone else - including people
with a lot of money riding on it) can verify that you trust the code, even if
you don't have any idea who wrote it. Compare to a bank's process, where if
you even try and reverse engineer the protocol you're risking jailtime.

