Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is a good chance to stop our dependence on DNS and move to things such as .onion domains instead (which by the way help avoid the whole certificate CA mess).





I believe the problem is the lack of protocols implemented in browsers. It's needlessly fragile to have a single route to the data.

"Web pages only last about 100 days on average"[1]

http was nice, we gave it a good spin, it was certainly close enough for the cigar but in all honesty... where you have 100 days to find the content you want to consume it is not even a reasonable approach. I bet a lot of it is still available some place but whoever archived it legally may not distribute it without permission.

I really don't care if TOR, IPFS, freenet or zeronet work out of the box. If it means access to more content its great. I don't even know how to use gopher atm.

Good stuff is happening[2] but where they apparently chose to make it an extension is pretty lame.

also..

If the user types "salvation army" into the browser we know what they want. Selling the rights to deny access is not what we need.

[1] - http://blog.archive.org/2015/02/11/locking-the-web-open-a-ca...

[2] - https://blog.ipfs.io/2019-10-08-ipfs-browsers-update/


Absolutely agree. Every site should also available on the onion network. This would put some pressure on DNS operators. This would also help dissociate the onion network from criminal activity. The more sites become available as hidden services, the more legitimate the network becomes.

I agree, but I would say that .onion addresses should already be seen as being entirely legitimate. Let's not forget that Facebook's onion address (facebookcorewwwi.onion) is the main target of "darknet" traffic by a very wide margin.

> This is a good chance to stop our dependence on DNS and move to things such as .onion domains instead (which by the way help avoid the whole certificate CA mess).

.onion isn't a direct competitor for DNS. It does some of the things DNS does (e.g. a consistent identifier that sticks even if your IP address changes), and even does some things DNS doesn't (e.g. encrypted transport), but the names aren't human-readable. And it compromises the security if you try to pretend that they are by generating pretty keys, because the random junk on the end there is important.

Namecoin, on the other hand, is a direct competitor for DNS.

However, DNS itself is pretty well federated. You're at the mercy of the TLD operator, but that only means you need to be careful to choose a trustworthy one. On the other hand, if you had asked last year which of the TLD operators would be the least likely to screw you over, a lot of people would have said .org, so... maybe there is something to this whole cryptographic trust thing.


>but the names aren't human-readable

For many decades (before smartphones) the phone system lacked human-readable names and yet was extremely popular with non-technical users. Similarly, most web sites probably do not benefit much or at all from a human-readable name.

A bigger problem with .onion is probably the fact it is accessible only via a system (Tor) that has significantly longer response time than a standard web site tends to have.


> he phone system lacked human-readable names and yet was extremely popular with non-technical users.

First of all, phone numbers were pretty short, and were chunked and thus pretty easy for humans to memorize. Do you think the average human will be able to memorize a bunch of onion addresses?

Second, even with phone numbers, companies used the corresponding characters to the digits to create human readable names, for example 1-800-FLOWERS




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: