NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:13:16 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (64 lines)
Thanks.  We know they are not keen on it, but I was assured that from a 
technical perspective there is not a problem.  Someone's data still has 
to go in WHOIS, they are not going to accept some kind of hash.
SP
On 2015-06-11 15:21, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Stephanie,
>
> I got onto this track because of questions about the Bitcoin as a 
> viable fiat/digital currency (which is a whole other question) but the 
> deeper I dug and the more I listened to the research groups dealing 
> with the blockchain technology the more it looks like there is 
> something in blockchain for the domain name/WhoIS area that could 
> apply to both registration and the payments issues, and the bigger 
> part is with regard to registering and transferring ownership.  As for 
> the payments issue, there are a zillion variations of Bitcoin in the 
> works: BitGold, BitOil, and probably bigger moves to BitUS$, BitEuro, 
> etc. There are Bitcoin researchers and blockchain researchers and I am 
> searching to see if any of the latter have looked at the domain name 
> registration issues. I see that Andrew Adams has provided a link to 
> some thought in this area. From a technical perspective there may be 
> something there. From a business perspective I can see why ICANN, 
> registries, and registrars would not be too keen on exploring 
> solutions using blockchain technology.
>
> Sam
>
> On 2015-06-11 2:13 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> So does this mean that the proposal we had for anonymous domain 
>> registration (in the Experts Working Group report on WHOIS 
>> replacement) is more doable, at least with respect to solving the 
>> anonymous payment issue?  There still has to be a proxy WHOIS entry, 
>> which I presume still requires a separate track.
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> On 2015-06-11 13:41, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
>>> Sam,
>>>
>>> There is a fork of the bitcoin blockchain specifically designed with 
>>> this in
>>> mind:
>>>
>>> https://namecoin.info/
>>>
>>>
>>> There has been also some academic work on using blockchain for 
>>> domain name
>>> concepts. See:
>>>
>>> Providing better confidentiality and authentication on the Internet 
>>> using
>>> Namecoin and MinimaLT
>>> Frederic Jacobs
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.6453
>>>
>>>
>>> Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications
>>> April 2015
>>> Difficulty control for blockchain-based consensus systems
>>> Daniel Kraft
>>> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12083-015-0347-x
>>>
>>>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2