The Pirate Bay Co-Founder Starting P2P-DNS

An anonymous reader writes "The Pirate Bay Co-Founder, Peter Sunde, has started a new project which will provide a decentralized p2p based DNS system. This is a direct result of the increasing control which the US government has over ICANN. The project is called P2P-DNS and according to the project's wiki, this is how the project is described: 'P2P-DNS is a community project that will free internet users from imperial control of DNS by ICANN. In order to prevent unjust prosecution or denial of service, P2P-DNS will operate as a distributed and less centralized service hosted by the users of DNS. Temporary substitutes, (as Alpha and Beta developments), are being made ready for deployment. A network with no centralized points of failure, (per the original design of the internet), remains our goal. P2P-DNS is developing rapidly.'"

Comments

I love the idea,

[pecosdave]

But there is so, so much potential for spammers to kill it before it gets out of the gate good. Spammers so far have killed quite a large number of things that used to be cool on the internet and they're not going to stop until they're reigned in or nobody uses anything electronic anymore because of them.

Re:I love the idea,

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd be more concerned by advertisers/audience tracker types than spammers(though, it is true, the botnet herders probably have enough hosts that, barring clever design, all domain names will point to h3rbal v15gra...)

There was a story a while back, I think it hit slashdot, about a university research group that set up a bugged tor node in order to explore that network. Because, unlike most of the idealists and tinfoil hats running tor nodes, they had a 100Mb symmetric line or something equally punchy, they had become the exit node of choice for some alarming percentage of the system by the end of their study.

Similarly, in the classic P2P scenarios, there are usually a few super seeders on University or colo connections, who end up moving a surprising percentage of the total traffic; because their connections are markedly better(and have basically 100% uptime compared to all the casual kids. Even when the casual kids actually introduce the material to the swarm, much of it ends up moving through the big guys.

I would imagine, again barring careful design(which would be tricky; because speed is of the essence with DNS lookups, unless you want your experience to suck), that it would be fairly trivial for google, Phorm, Neilson(if they aren't still living in the 19th century), or the like to set up a few P2P DNS servers that, for a few hundred bucks a month per geographic region, are by far the most responsive and fastest in the area(basic dual-socket 1u colo box on a gigabit line, we aren't talking crazy money here) which would give them near-ISP level of insight into where users of the P2P DNS are going...

Re:I love the idea,

[colordev]

Count me in. I loved the internet when it was the new 'wild west'. With good PLANNING this project can become a great success that will _host_ great sites like Wikileaks! I would prefer...

(BEGIN of prior art to patent buster) a filesharing system and a device arrangement which is K N O W N for being a scalable anonymous encrypted distributer filesharing- network with properties of distributed webserver environment, where each user might be allowed to upload an amount of new file-data, that may be related to the amount of file-data which that particular user has mediated before to one or more of the other users of that p2p-cloud server computer system, of which that users computer may be part of. (END of prior art to patent buster)

when can I have one?

Re:I love the idea,

[colordev]

Sorry, forgot the word "onion-routed" *blush*

(BEGIN of prior art to patent buster) a filesharing system and a device arrangement which is K N O W N for being a scalable anonymous onion-routed encrypted distributed filesharing- network with properties of distributed webserver environment, where each user might be allowed to upload an amount of new file-data, that may be related to the amount of file-data which that particular user has mediated before to one or more of the other users of that p2p-cloud server computer system, of which that users computer may be part of. (END of prior art to patent buster)

Re:I love the idea,

[DarkOx]

Sorry we caught you, you are using Windows. Its okay really you don't have to be ashamed; there are lots of people out there just like you.

Re:I love the idea,

[silly_sysiphus]

I went through essentially the same process this year; all you need to do is sell your overpriced/overvalued Apple hardware and use that money for a (maybe slightly used) Thinkpad, preferably a T-series. Heck, I made a profit switching from a Macbook Pro to a Thinkpad, and ended up with faster, newer, more capable hardware. (high-end Thinkpads are fantastic on their own merits, but stand out for being some of the most Linux-friendly laptops around...of course, if you just need a desktop, the job's even easier).

Re:I love the idea,

[tomasf]

in the next revision even in the main OS is going to have iTunes being the main source of software

The Mac App Store is not a part of iTunes.

Re:I love the idea,

[tmosley]

Well, that's great, but this development means that the network doesn't just fail if those big nodes just disappear. The network will self adjust such that it takes full advantage of the resources it has access to. It isn't about empowering the people nor is it about isolating big companies. It is about ensuring that the network continues to function in the face of any type of attack, including those coming from governments or big corporations.

Re:I love the idea,

[Rich0]

Cost to send a bazillion spam emails from other people's computers:? Pretty close to zero.

Benefit from doing so:? Not much, but greater than zero.

Cost:benefit ratio:? Probably better than buying blue chip stocks.

Re:I love the idea,

[metrix007]

you realize that the above is useless as far as being submitted for prior art, right?

Re:I love the idea,

[internewt]

The mainstream computer companies are constantly banging on about how their products are easier to use, more user friendly, etc. than the competition. This is because the majority of the market (or the profitable bit) are essentially new computer users. Or are getting a computer of their own for the first time for recreational use, when they had generally only used computers in work/school for work/school stuff.

If the market was made up of experienced users, things wouldn't be sold as "easy to use", where easy to use is "possibly intuitive for those who don't get computer concepts, and will not RTFM". Cars (yeah, ignore the .sig) aren't sold as easy to use because the market for cars is made up of people who have to demonstrate they can work a car, and hence understand what features a car will and won't have, where they will probably be, and which ones to use and when. Car buyers don't need the steering wheel to be huge and green, they don't need a wizard to wind the windows down.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that, world wide, every year there are more new users to the internet than the previous year. This means there's lots of new users who don't know how spam works, who don't know how affiliates work, who don't know how banner ads work, who don't know how Google works, who don't know about shit like those text advert links inserted into articles, etc.. These new users possibly will not think that v14gr4 is purposefully written like that, and might even think something like computer messages can suffer interference like a radio signal can.

New users also aren't used to the fonts. Slashdotters can no doubt tell the difference between l 1 I | and o O 0, and can identify the characters correctly when they aren't alongside the ones they could be confused with, but new users? No chance. v14gra might not look that odd to a new user, and so they don't spot it as suspect. You also can't buy viagra off the shelf (or at least, I don't think you can), so when presented with it human interest does kick in for some individuals.

I do sound like I am blaming new users, but I have been using the internet long enough to have seen new users come to the internet and wise up many times. Sometimes they barely wise up, sometimes they wise up very quick, but generally they stand to be manipulated the most when new to the web. There are people though who know they are limited, and so take things extra cautiously, though they are a fucking rare breed.

New users aren't necessarily used to the concepts that computers can produce copies for virtually no effort. Whilst there is a very clear cost to spam put through your front door, there isn't with email or other forms of spam, so even if the person has thought about the economics of advertising IRL, they might not get it right when it comes to computers. And so the spam could seem more legitimate than it is (not that I see any adverts as legitimate - they exist to manipulate your decision making processes, and I do not want that done to me. So I reject all advertising, everywhere).

Anyway, the answer? Education. And proper education, not asking MS what people should be learning. And not mandated computer science for all (though it should be available, if people want it). I dunno exactly what people need, but IME if some people had some basic knowledge of concepts like files and directories, programs and data, they would find using computers much less frustrating. I feel many proprietary products (and free ones that have copied paradigms) purposefully obscure what is going on so that the user becomes dependent on the proprietary product to do a job. The user can't learn what is going on, and if they did, they might change to a different product to do the same job. And that's bad for business.

Re:I love the idea,

[Beardo the Bearded]

Spam doesn't sell products. Spam is itself the product. Spammers sell the spam service to people who think that spam works. "If only 1/10th of 1% buy, then you meet your ROI!" but that's just a lie to get the cash.

The emails themselves are the product that is being purchased. The items being hawked are irrelevant.

Re:I love the idea,

[Fjandr]

The problem with random peers is stated above, though perhaps not explicitly. Given the levels of botnet infection, all spammers would have to do is install the software on their zombies and a huge chunk of those "random peers" become malicious DNS servers.

Re:I love the idea,

[colordev]

uh,... no why would it be.

prior art is "the total body of knowledge, which teaches or otherwise relates directly to an invention. This is the primary criteria in determining the patentability of a new invention. Establishes novelty and unobviousness of the art that relates to the invention in question. Prior art references include documentary sources such as patents and publications from anywhere in the world, and nondocumentary sources such as things known or used publicly. "

OR

"Prior art or state of the art is all information that has been disclosed to the public in any form before a given date. Prior art does not include information kept secret, whether from trade secrecy or just a simple lack of interest in publication. Normally, we expect prior art to be descriptions sufficient to inform the average worker in the field (or the man skilled in the art), published in fixed form and made available in public libraries. Normally, prior art does not include unpublished work or mere conversations (though according to the European Patent Convention, oral disclosures also form prior art"

This is slashdot and many of those who choose to come and read news about "Pirate bay's co-founder starting P2P-DNS", are enough experts in fieds of filesharing, TOR, bittorrent and cloud technologies. In fact, I am pretty sure even you would read that "prior art patent-claim" to be (mostly) describing a "bit-torrent-TOR-hybrid-system", where the amount of data that the user mediates to other users impacts the amount of data that user is allowed to submit to the distributed-cloud- webserver-right. And based on just that you could see the the obvious industrial benefits being at least...

• vandals could not flood the distributed webserver with bogus data.
• cloud-webserver would be available as a storage media, files would be stored on (almost) 'randomly chosen' users computers
• Because the distributed fileserver would fetch the files using an encrypted onion-router like structure privacy of users would be improved
• Storing the files in encrypted form would allow even companies to use that as data distribution, storage server.

So, how could that used as a prior art, well lets assume lets say in 10 years time a company X would start patent trolling companies who use that kind of distributed storage. And if that patent was really a problem then EFFI of some other instance could challenge that patent and request prior art to that patent... and there is a high probability I would also see that request. And I would check my submit mini-prior art to the one needing it.

I believe these kinds of submarine-prior- art patent-busters could be very effective against submarine- patent trolls. If this type of action was popular among independent coders, it would take away much of the problem with stupid software patent. Companies would not dare to start costly process of suing everybody for something obvious, as there would be a BIG probability that someone in the world might just show up and invalidate the whole patent in the middle of an expensive legal process.

For me it was easy to cast that technology to public domain, as I have no use for it self and I'd like that being used. Ok, it is likely that the writing of that patent-buster was 15 minutes of wasted time, but there is also a small chance it wasn't. I consider that being a small service to the community.

Re:I love the idea,

[M. Baranczak]

I'd be more concerned by advertisers/audience tracker types than spammers

There's a difference?

Re:I love the idea,

[metrix007]

Two words: Lacks and Detail.

Your little blurb paragraph lacks enough detail to be considered prior art for a patent application that would have excessive detail, making your little blurb abstract enough not to qualify in any meaningful way.

Honestly, it won't and can't be used for anything, and I guarantee it never will be, nor that any comment on any BBS ever has.

Good luck with that.

[Skarecrow77]

When you violate US copyright law, the feds really just kinda laugh and say "ok, sure, whatever."
When you try and prevent the US government from taking over something they've set their sights on dominating, they're a whole other kind of aggressive beast.

watch your back dude...

Re:Good luck with that.

[vlm]

Up Next - "The Pirate Bay Co-Founded killed in mysterious accident"

Accused of rape in a friendly foreign country, more likely.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Barefoot Monkey]

"The Pirate Bay Co-Founder ... and alleged rapist ... has started a new project which will provide a decentralized p2p based ..."

That should be a new meme. Simply put "an alleged rapist" after every reference to anyone at all, until that particular vector of character assassination becomes meaningless.

It's important to ensure that your subject actually is an alleged rapist though - otherwise you're just being inaccurate and libellous. The trick is to tell someone (a friend sitting next to you at the time will do) that the subject is a rapist, thus permanently transforming the subject into an alleged rapist even if the person you told is fully aware of the meme. It's safe to then clarify that the subject is not actually a rapist, since there is no such thing as "a formerly-alleged rapist".

This idea is inspired by Godwin (an alleged rapist) and his well-known counter-meme, Godwin's Law.

Re:Good luck with that.

[networkBoy]

raped to death by Canadian ninja turtles in a friendly foreign country?

Re:Good luck with that.

[moonbender]

So is Castro.

Re:Good luck with that.

[GameboyRMH]

The company formerly known as Blackwater goes by many names, I don't think they even use Xe anymore. They recently won a contract with the US government under another name, International Development Solutions. But they're generally using more names than you can count on one hand.

Been Tried...

[nweaver]

This has been tried, several times. With the same problems popping up again and again.

Such as "The DNS is a hierarchical namespace, P2P type controls work only for flat namespaces. Yet generally people like hierarchical namespaces."

and "Without a good notion of cryptographic trust, you're doomed in a P2P setting. And if you think a PKI is hard to get right...".

Re:Been Tried...

[vlm]

>Such as "The DNS is a hierarchical namespace, P2P type controls work only for flat namespaces. Yet generally people like hierarchical namespaces."

Its the other way around, people generally hate hierarchical namespaces.

Outside the US, the whole "co.uk" type thing is tolerated, not enjoyed. Inside the US, the unwashed masses are completely mystified by *.state.us addresses to the point that they are mostly unused, with domains like "cityname.com" or "schoolname.org" as the modern preferred choice. Also "AOL keywords" have been replaced by "www.facebook.com/whatever". You see, each step in the edu/gov/us hierarchy contains a nearly impenetrable bureaucracy, but registering a ".com" at godaddy just takes 5 minutes and a credit card...

Re:Been Tried...

[werfu]

Then go flat namespace. Why do we really need hierarchical namespace? I mean, people don't bother if its .com, .net or .org. Its a convention. Anyway, most people now protect their domain name by buying other domain suffix. Or like my mom that has google as her start page, and enter the url she wants to go directly into the google search textbox then press search. IMO domain suffix are overrated and provide more bloat to the net than it does good. Just look at the mess the .co domain is doing. A lot of domain scammers have already taken well known domains to make moneys from people entering things like hotmail.co. If there was no domain suffix, you would simply enter gmail and then get to gmail. Who cares about country anyway on the net.

Re:Been Tried...

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying was also tried time and a time again, but eventually humans flew.

While seemingly insightful at first blush, that comment is useless. Of course some difficult problems can eventually be solved. That's a big duh-four, good buddy.

Re:Been Tried...

[bluefoxlucid]

Right, a P2P decentralized DNS would need to rely on date-stamped, signed DNS entries with hierarchy control. Who owns slashdot.org? Does it DNS? No? Okay, find entries. Oh, here's several, but this one's outdated, and these three are newer than this still valid one signed by someone else. Well then that one should be valid. Okay, so the same entity should be signing *.slashdot.org entries... see?

Re:Been Tried...

[Logic and Reason]

2. The ability to type in an URL that they saw in an advertisment, magazine, or other off-line source.

I'm not even convinced they need to do that. Google searches are easier and more reliable (typo correction, auto-suggest, even basic phishing/malware protection).

Re:Been Tried...

[TheRaven64]

I read a paper a few years ago, which showed a strong correlation between programmers and hierarchical thinkers. This isn't entirely surprising - most programming languages arrange code in hierarchical structures (modules, classes, subroutines, nested scopes, and so on), so to be able to use one you need to be good at thinking in terms of hierarchy. Programmers therefore tend to assume that thinking in terms of hierarchies is normal for humans. In fact, the study showed that it's only easy for something like 5-10% of the population.

iTunes is a good example. It arranges music in a flat layout and lets you filter it based on various properties. A typical programmer reaction is 'why would I want that? My music is arranged in an artist/album/track directory structure already'. It's one of the main reasons why programmers tend to be terrible at designing user interfaces for non-programmers.

The ultimate in decentralization:

[John Hasler]

hosts files.

Re:The ultimate in decentralization:

[maxume]

All you have to do now is automate the process of updating it.

You could have some sort of program that acted both as a client and a server...

Re:The ultimate in decentralization:

[John Hasler]

And we could use recursion to distribute the files. We could call the levels of recursion "domains" and we'd anchor the whole thing to some sort of a "root"...

Lack of Adoption ... Again

[eldavojohn]

From the article:

This is not the first time that an alternative Domain Name System has been proposed. Starting with AlterNIC in 1997, alternative DNS has had a controversial history. Many have ceased to function now because of the lack of adoption from users. However, coming right after the controversial seizure of 80 domains by the US government, P2P-DNS might just get enough support to make it a success.

My personal problem with the seizure of 80 domains really isn't that big of a deal. It sucks and it's probably a sign of the abuse of power from the DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). But in the end, it was widely announced and advertised. It wasn't done under the cover of secrecy and they at least gave reasons as to why they were seized. For me, this isn't a reason to change the DNS root server that I use. Especially facing slower resolve times and security issues like DNS poisoning.

I can tell you I'm not interested in that trade off ... yet. If we see the US government doing what China's doing and not announcing who's being seized and why, then you will see me jump on board this.

My close friend used borntrade.net which was a knockoff jersey site from a factory in China. Their crime? Avoiding tariffs and not paying tribute to the NHL/MLB/NFL/NBA gods. He might want to use your DNS but I would assume it would only be to conduct business through borntrade.net and not to actually use it on a daily basis. Disclaimer: I think I've seen borntrade bots spamming the Slashdot forums before but now that it's just a DHS/DoJ logo splash screen, you can rest assured I'm not some guy trying to send you there by way of a fake comment.

I would guess that despite the domains being seized, you're going to see the general public not care that much and again the project will fail from lack of adoption. Clandestine government working against the people? Yeah, a few more people are going to hop on board and put up with the speed and security issues. But could someone outline how the whole public would get on board with this? I mean, assuming it's as simple as a browser plugin you can't even get people to install those when the benefits are obvious.

Re:Lack of Adoption ... Again

[Ltap]

Exactly. If people aren't installing Adblock Plus, despite all of the enormous benefits, they are going to mess with alternate DNS -- assuming they even know what DNS is and what it does. On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily need to have perfect adoption. Like torrents, it is fine if it starts with a few technically proficient people, then spreads outwards.

Also, you've probably underestimated the use against, say, schools or workplaces that use alternate DNS servers with "questionable" domains removed. Using this with encryption will pretty much kill any attempt at monitoring.

Re:Lack of Adoption ... Again

[airfoobar]

I thought the only reason they announced what websites were seized was public outcry... Besides, with COICA coming up, I expect online censorship will become just another part of everyday life. Adoption will be driven by need, and if we want to be optimistic, let's hope the need doesn't arise.

From what I read, the new DNS service will basically redirect to the usual ICANN system, except for .p2p domains for which lookup will be distributed. Even if governments censor Wikileaks and TPB .com domains, the .p2p domains will remain. The whole idea is to reassert that the internet routes around the bad parts, and to show to the imbeciles we have for politicians that we won't let them censor our internets.

Re:Lack of Adoption ... Again

[Abcd1234]

My personal problem with the seizure of 80 domains really isn't that big of a deal. It sucks and it's probably a sign of the abuse of power from the DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). But in the end, it was widely announced and advertised. It wasn't done under the cover of secrecy and they at least gave reasons as to why they were seized.

Yeah! It's kinda like how the cops can just walk into your house and take your computer without any kind of due process, so long as they announce it ahead of time, and give a few good excuses!

Right? I'm sure that's how it's supposed to work...

Re:Lack of Adoption ... Again

[Hatta]

If the thefts are taking place in broad daylight, supported by your own government, without any sort of due process, then you might want to consider that bunker.

ICANN...

[digitaldc]

...see this being mysteriously stopped by unknown forces.

So let's keep trying

[Anonymous Coward]

A completely decentralized internet would be nothing less than the holy grail of communications. So let's try to support those who strive for this noble goal. A centralized network, no matter how "democratic", is ultimately founded on political power, and I certainly don't have to explain why political power can't be trusted.

Re:2 questions

[werfu]

2: would this be a router's worst nightmare? In tree structure that ISPs has put us in, yes. But if this structure ever fails and we get back to the original net design, which is a mesh network, than it would not be such a problem. DNS change would be propagated to next nodes, wave like. IMO the problems come from the centralization and tree structure the net has become. We've seen fiber optic cable cutting net access to a whole part of the world. What would happen in a global war? Or a megalomaniac terrorist decided to cut net links all around the world? Worst economical crash ever? We're too dependent on big telcos and governments infrastructures. The net should be open, free for anyone. Simply by airwaves, like a big shout going unstopped around the world. Alright, enough dreaming here, I'm out :)

WINS - Yes, WINS - Windows Internet Naming System

[Joe U]

Most major systems have a WINS client, I doubt nearly anyone is using it at home.

Write a resolver that mimics WINS to the client and then behind the scenes use a modern P2P encrypted network.

No client work is needed, no DNS passthru is needed and no DNS baggage is needed.

Now you have a foothold until you spend the time to write a native client.

Peter Sunde says...

[SgtKeeling]

From Peter Sunde's twitter:

Plz stop saying I'm the guy behind the new DNS-system. I'm just one of lots of people with interest in it. Everyone does their part!

https://twitter.com/#!/brokep/status/9684729515220992

yawn

[burris]

Before embarking in this project, shouldn't he finish his replacement for BitTorrent he announced a few years back?

I'm sure the DNS project will be as successful as that one.

Violence is the answer.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

If spammers are such a problem, then we just need a distributed final solution to the spammer question. I recommend the new German microwave ovens; they seat five thousand.

Re:Violence is the answer.

[Aurisor]

Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (X) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
(X) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

History lesson

[GPLDAN]

Karl Denninger, Chicago's most despised internet citizen, now Tea Party wacko dispensing Capital Market advice/doom in Florida, once tried to take ICANN on in 1997 and create eDNS, an alternate DNS with new root servers. Mostly under his direction. He failed. Funny, he doesn't mention that in his bio when he appears as the resident doomsayer on one of the financial networks on tv these days.

Nevertheless, it's a good history lesson in taking ICANN head on. Peter Sunde has something truly subversive, the people taking back the name server space. Let's see if Karl can get on board with this, he's usually preaching that the people need to take pitchforks and torches and march in the street.

Re:WINS - Yes, WINS - Windows Internet Naming Syst

[alphatel]

Even as a hybrid node, WINS is limited to 15 characters (last bit for browser announce) so we'd run out of address space quick. Plus if memory serves (it's been a while), routers will not pass NBT traffic without implicit configuration.

It already works

[Steeltoe]

Yet Tor supports DNS out of the box with just a quick option in torrc:
DNSPort 51

Set your DNS-host on all interfaces to localhost, removing everything else, and off you go.. Anonymous DNS.

Yes, it's slow, it often fails and the system can be tricked to produce false IPs, although there are some simple measurements against it. However, if you want anonymity from dedicated adversaries, it's crucial to know how to properly hide DNS lookups. If anonymity is important to you, the suckiness will matter less to you.

For most of us, it's too insecure and overkill, but for some, it's a viable option since the alternatives can mean torture and death.

I'm sure it is possible to improve on this considerably. You will never reach 100% security, but it can become tolerable for private usage.

The greatest accomplishments were never easy.

Re:It already works

[GameboyRMH]

That's not really a P2P DNS system, that's doing regular DNS lookups through an onion-routed anonymizer network. If the US government takes out the record for wikileaks.org, you're still not going to be able to resolve it by doing the lookup through Tor.

Also if you're just browsing, you can send your DNS lookups through Tor's SOCKS5 server.

Doesn't look decentralized

[Sloppy]

The Torrentfreak article says:

The domain registrations will be totally free, but registrants will have to show that they own a similar domain with a different extension first, to prevent scammers from taking over a brand.

Have to show? Have to show to whom? It sounds like they already have a centralized authority.

If you are so concerned about "preventing scammers from taking over brands" then you're going to have some mechanism for dealing with scammers. And if that mechanism exists, then governments probably can use it to deal with you.

And also, frankly, the narrow focus on one TLD, "p2p" hints that these guys aren't thinking very big.

I think creating a new sabotage/coercion resistant DNS is a worthy goal. Remember that COICA and the recent seizures are just another straw on the camel's back, in a long history of governments interfering with DNS, people disagreeing with ICANN policies, and whatnot. The need isn't going away until it gets solved. But these particular guys have already taken at least 1 step in the wrong direction. That one line about registration shows that protecting freedom of expression isn't their top priority, but if it's not the top priority, then the system won't solve the problem people have with ICANN's DNS.

Re:Doesn't look decentralized

[Punkbob]

At the moment that is true. Peter Sunde and other decided to partner with OpenNIC to try and get a .P2P domain up as fast as possible. It is just the first step and there is already a group working on the next step. We are planning the architecture, developing early alpha software and starting to coordinate the project. We are working on a completely distributed P2P DNS, that will meet the stated goals of the FAQ page that quote is from. If you want to be involved then visit the wiki at http://www.dot-p2p.org/index.php?title=Main_Page or on efnet at #dns-p2p

Comcast

[Sleepy]

Comcast is doing WONDERS to educate the public about the importance of DNS.

Years ago, just after the SECOND major Comcast outage, I switched from Comcast nameservers to some pretty old and reliable AT&T nameservers at 4.2.2.1. Of course there was OpenDNS also but it's a pain to remember their DNS server IP addresses.

Since then I switched to Google's free DNS - same benefit, but faster and "8.8.8.8" and "8.8.4.4" is -incredibly- easy for people to remember.

Now with Comcast's THIRD major DNS outage, people resorted to using Facebook and Twitter using just their mobile phones. Guess what? Nearly everyone who bitched about Comcast got a reply from some friend, just go plug in these numbers in Network Settings... and many did! The word IS spreading....

What SPAM doesn't kill, gets stronger....

[malakai]

You are looking at this from the wrong point of view. It is not that SPAM kills good products. Instead SPAM kills products that were poorly designed and/or implemented.

Let's say SPAM didn't exist. Let us say that you create some new Killer App 4.0. You release it. Someone doesn't like you. They don't like your company, or they don't like someone using your product. They don't want to make a buck, they just want to grief. At this point, whatever flaws would have been exploited by a SPAM'er, is going to be exploited by this griefer.

SPAM IS GOOD. Our infrastructure and our original set of RFC's are BAD. They were built in too clean of a room. They worked initially in the original sterile environment, but they are failing to cope with the current non-sterile environment. All internet products need a much more healthy immune systems. And SPAM, if it's good for nothing, is good for building an Immune systems ( have you tasted it )?