Lightweight resolver blog post to be published

[hlandau]

Indolering wants this published on the Namecoin project blog:

Namecoin: Lightweight Resolution Roadmap https://github.com/hlandau/ncdocs/blob/master/lwblogpost.md

[ryancdotorg]

I have some edits - will make them this evening.

[indolering]

@ryancdotorg I would like to get this published, perhaps you could outline what you wanted changed and I could edit it?

[phelixbtc]

Great article.

the identity of the set of all current names is attested to continously throughout the mining process"

Something seems to be missing here.

I would not mention DNSChain. A general warning would be plenty. Also something like it might have it's niche.

Only secure lightweight resolution, as described above, can make Namecoin domains robust against MITM attacks perpetrated by state actors.

Or full nodes. With UTXO and spam removed from the blockchain they would still be pretty lightweight.

[JeremyRand]

I support mentioning DNSChain, because it's directly relevant to the advantages of the lightweight resolvers discussed in the post.

[indolering]

the identity of the set of all current names is attested to continously throughout the mining process"

Something seems to be missing here.

No, I think that sounds correct, except "continuously" is spelled incorrectly.

Mentioning DNSChain in relation to a blogpost on lightweight resolvers Ryan's idea. I think that this conforms to the norms set by Tor (in that they will link to outside research on their blog).

[indolering]

This has been going for nearly 2 weeks. I made minor changes and I think it's ready to go. @ryancdotorg publish ACK?

[JeremyRand]

@indolering you didn't address @phelixbtc 's last comment (regarding full nodes, which I agree with).

[phelixbtc]

NACK. I am quite certain there is still something wrong with the sentence I pointed out. @hlandau ?

@ryancdotorg : The last paragraph weakens the end of the article. It is only indirectly related to the issues discussed earlier and simply does not fit at the end. If it is meant to establish relevancy of the topic it should go at the beginning as part of the introduction. Also it does not make sense to give publicity and link to a project that you claim is dangerous. Once again, calling out specific projects sounds unprofessional to me and leaves a bad taste of personal motivation. Before we publicly bash someone in the same boat with us we should discuss it on the forum in any case.

[ryancdotorg]

I am currently working on making major changes.

[JeremyRand]

I'm fine with waiting for @ryancdotorg 's proposed changes.

[phelixbtc]

@ryancdotorg Please consider a separate blog post on the advantages and disadvantages of server based resolving. :)

[ryancdotorg]

@phelixbtc What about a list of ways to access .bit domains with objective pros/cons for each, maybe?

[ryancdotorg]

my changes are done, @indolering can you put them on github?

[ryancdotorg]

@JeremyRand @phelixbtc can you please proofread it once @indolering does that? It'd be good to get this posted today.

[indolering]

See GDoc.

[indolering]

I've scheduled the blogpost to go live tomorrow. If there are any changes from the current GDoc, just tag me in the reply and I will update the blogpost.

[JeremyRand]

The terminology is not settled; see https://github.com/hlandau/ncdocs/issues/2 . I do not want to have to revise after posting. Please DO NOT post until terminology is figured out.

[indolering]

@JeremyRand terminology settled, ACK?

[indolering]

Naming has been settled and altered, JBisch gave it a proofread, posted:

http://blog.namecoin.org/post/109811339625/lightweight-resolvers

Please close.

[phelixbtc]

@ryancdotorg I liked your edited version of the last paragraph.