

Google hijacking DNS to sabotage projects like Namecoin? - itistoday2
http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1440&p=7706

======
pjscott
Spoiler: the answer is no. To see the _actual_ rationale, check out the blog
post this guy is loudly reacting to:

[https://plus.google.com/+WilliamChanPanda/posts/FKot8mghkok](https://plus.google.com/+WilliamChanPanda/posts/FKot8mghkok)

~~~
itistoday2
I did, and sections from that blog post were quoted in the link, and the
specific rationale was dissected and questioned.

------
samworm
Are Google "hijacking DNS to sabotage projects like Namecoin?" \- No. I doubt
the people working on this give any thought to Namecoin, the user-base overlap
is approximately 0%. They're doing this because they think it will improve
performance.

~~~
itistoday2
Your reply seems almost identical to pjscott's, to which I already responded
(so my response to you is the same):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6949269](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6949269)

------
dingaling
Whilst I can understand Google's desire to parallelise and accelerate DNS
resolution, building their own browser-level resolver is a hairy way to do so.

Several projects have attempted to address this problem before ( C-ARES, and
Polipo's internal resolver ) but never managed to achieve critical momentum.
Might it not have been worth focusing effort there?

Plus, naturally, there's the temptation to use Google's own public DNS servers
instead of adhering to the OS-specified resolution order.

------
declan
When you fear you're a nail, everything looks like a big scary hammer?

~~~
itistoday2
Yes, even hammers, the small, non-intimidating kind. ;)

(Please keep the discussion to the merits of the points raised.)

~~~
declan
I'm happy to do so, of course. In cases where the points actually have merit.
:)

~~~
itistoday2
...Whether or not the points have any merit, you're welcome to point that out
and explain why.

------
itistoday2
"Hijacking" was poor word choice. I renamed the thread to "Google implementing
its own DNS, implications for Namecoin?"

Questions remain though, as to why Google is doing this. The rationale they've
provided just doesn't make much sense in light of alternatives that they know
about.

~~~
itistoday2
I edited the post with the following comment (in bold at the bottom), as I did
not notice the timestamp on the post, nor did anyone else bring it to my
attention:

 _EDIT (December 22, 2013 1:24PM EST): Actually, I made a mistake in failing
to notice the timestamp of the post. It crossed my news feed yesterday, and I
mistakenly assumed that it was news. In March of 2012 Google could not have
known about DNSNMC specifically, but they could have known about Namecoin and
[other DNS
projects]([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6950592](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6950592)).
Therefore, I take back my accusations against Google, apologize for them, and
withhold judgement until I learn what their current-day plans are on this. If
anyone knows off the top of their heads whether they are still planning on
going in this direction, please comment below!_

