News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Transitioning the web to Namecoin by addressing name-squatters. Parent comment

Re:Transitioning the web to Namecoin by addressing name-squa... by sliverstorm on Saturday December 21, 2013 @11:32PM (#6949353)
What happens if the DNS server happens to be unreachable

This is not a problem with Namecoin, right? Traditional DNS has the exact same problem, namely general intolerance to failure.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Transitioning the web to Namecoin by addressing name-squa... by tlrobinson on Sunday December 22, 2013 @02:44PM (#6951415)
I don't think you understood my concern. The problem is if a signature stored in a legacy DNS record is used to verify a "registration" of a Namecoin domain, every Namecoin client needs to see the exact same "view" of that record, otherwise some Namecoin clients will consider it valid and some will consider it invalid, forking the Namecoin blockchain.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Transitioning the web to Namecoin by addressing name-squa... by sliverstorm on Sunday December 22, 2013 @03:02PM (#6951486)
You're right, I didn't pick up on that. Sorry.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Transitioning the web to Namecoin by addressing name-squa... by GigabyteCoin on Sunday December 22, 2013 @01:49AM (#6949594)
Right. Mainly because everybody who runs a full namecoin node will have access to the equivalent of a root name server: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_name_server
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Transitioning the web to Namecoin by addressing name-squa... by sargun on Sunday December 22, 2013 @02:53AM (#6949705)
More like they will have access to the dot-bit TLD name servers.
[ Parent | on HN ]