Re: [therightkey] DNSNMC deprecates Certificate Authorities and fixes HTTPS security

[Ben Laurie <[e-mail]>]

On 16 December 2013 22:12, Tao Effect <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Ben Laurie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Fun though it is to debate the merits of bitcoin, the question at hand
> is whether we should form a WG.
>
> If you want to propose a bitcoin based protocol, go right ahead.
>
>
> Though this thread is more of an announcement, it can also be considered a
> first draft of a proposal for DNSNMC.
>
> Paper was linked to in the first post, here it is again:
>
> http://okturtles.com/other/dnsnmc_okturtles_overview.pdf
>
> My difficulties with bitcoin as a whole are on record.
>
>
> OK... and so are the replies to your paper.
>
> P.S. I think you're criticising a different paper. For example, this
> one doesn't even mention IP addresses.
>
>
> What are you mentioning then? What does this paragraph refer to, if not IP
> addresses?
>
> Next we have to agree who should get the coin. This is not particularly
> hard. First we use efficient unbounded agreement to number the current
> participants11 sequentially. We then use it to agree a consensus random
> number. This could be done, for example, by agreeing a commitment for each
> participant, and then revealing the value they committed to, adding them all
> together and taking the modulo of that total, which would randomly designate
> a participant.

For anyone following along: there's little chance you'll understand
this paragraph without reading the paper. Sorry. But it doesn't refer
to IP addresses.

Once more: this is not the forum for debating the merits of bitcoin.