Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

I am mystified by Handshake. It's not just a "protocol", as I understand it, but also a coin. In other words, this project has essentially claimed the Internet root as its own, and then securitized it, selling in effect shares. But they don't own the Internet root; it isn't theirs to securitize. I always ask: if they can do this with DNS, can I do it with ARP?

View on HN

That's the thing about claiming the root: anyone can try. There is no title to the root, of course, as you well know.

You can certainly try to do it with anything you like, Sealand included. The real work is getting others to agree or care. Handshake has some preliminary support, and more, it seems, than any other project in recent memory.

Alternic once tried, as did Namecoin. IIRC there was also an alternative PKI root that some hackers tried to get going, but no browser ever incorporated into the trust store.

Alternic and Namecoin foundered on the same issue. To me, this Handshake stuff seems like the Springfield Monorail. It makes sense as long as you don't think about it, but as soon as you do, you wonder why on Earth anyone would agree to new root that gives value to a bunch of pre-mined coins.

Anyone can try! I'm not saying Handshake is, like, illegal. But it still seems like... a scam? I'm not sure what the word is.

They've reserved the top 100k Alexa domains on HNS for the original DNS owners. They're actively thwarting ICANN's overreach and centralisation of control by redecentralising the internet again. But sure, everytime HN sees a legitimate use case for a blockchain it's a "scam".

Is it a coin-like? Can you speculate on the coin-like? Did they pre-mine the coin-like and gift it to themselves and people they wanted favor with? If so, do I care that they've "reserved the top 100k Alex domains on HNS for the original DNS owners"? How nice of them.

> sees a legitimate use case for a blockchain

I'm still waiting....

Bollocks. What ICANN overreach? Creating around 2000 new top-level domains over 20 years at the request of the "global multi-stakeholder community" that anyone can be a part of? You prefer Handshake be the sole determiner? Why Alexa 100k not 10k or 1m? Who made them god of the root again?

ICANN overreach? You mean like opening a gTLD program (why not) but only for the richest corporations on earth. By making a 100k$ entry ticket they have made sure that only bda commercial actors are able to operate a gTLD, leading to outcomes such as many unprofitable gTLDs closed down over the years [0] and certain TLDs raising prices by over 100% from one year to the next [1].

Moreover, ICANN-affiliated industrial cartel is trying to keep this for-profit status quo, as exemplified by njal.la registrar operator Peter Sunde being denied ICANN accreditation despite being well-known (despite my political disagreements with him) as a good-faith actor [2].

[0] https://dzdb.caida.org/tlds/graveyard

[1] Forgot which as i haven't been affected, but HN folks will probably find links to comments on here talking about.

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26326795

So only the top 100k domains get to keep their names, and the rest of us can find new ones because we'll be domain squatted by early miners with tons of coins?

> They're actively thwarting ICANN's overreach and centralisation of control by redecentralising the internet again.

I'm all in favor of that. ICANN and its affiliated TLD/registrar mafia is screwing everyone. However, Handshake depiste the good stuff (distributing lots of cash to free software project) is not effectively decentralizing DNS governance, it's centralizing it in different hands: who controls the Handshake source code? what is the treat model of its blockchain in regards to Sybil attacks? Can the persons with the biggest wallets control the network? If so, it sounds like ICANN all over again, with "coin" speculation added on top.

> a legitimate use case for a blockchain

A blockchain in itself has many usecases as an append-only ledger. However, i've yet to see a legit usecase for a public blockchain, because trying to establish global consensus among unlimited untrusted peers is "hard" to say the least.

DNS sounds like a good usecase for a DHT, where Sybil-resilience has been better researched in the past decades. The root zone would simply be a well-known entry in the DHT, much like it currently is a set of well-known IP addresses and DNSSEC keys.

I strongly recommend you watch ICANN's "Emerging identifiers" session [0] from ICANN66 where both Handshake and GNS are presented. I found it very informative that Handshake is more concerned with the domain acquisition process (auction) while GNS is more concerned with solving actual problems we have with DNS (security and privacy).

[0] https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/M8N-Duq935XheIZoBedIwm... <-- sorry for linking to Zoom, it appears ICANN doesn't have a Peertube yet

The word is "ponzi scheme" ;)

Well if the thing they want is trust then lets "securitize" that. We can bundle up all the world's trust sell little trustcoins. Inevitably then whoever had the most coins would be the most trustworthy, and hence the source of truth for things like domain resolution etc.

Isn't that how capitalism works (or rather, doesn't work) already? /s

You can request it, but you may not get the response you want

you know those black helicopters the tinfoil crowd talks about? They show only if you try to securitize ARPA products ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com