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

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Tao Effect <[e-mail]> wrote:

> And for someone who is accusing others of being 'fraudulent', not a good
> move to start off repeating figures already exposed as bogus like the oft
> repeated but still untrue claim of 600 CAs.
>
>
> I thought the EFF was a reputable source.
>
> There has been no update or correction to their post:
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/how-secure-https-today
>

Which kind of calls their credibility into question. HALF the 'CAs' in
their graph are from the DFN root. You can check that out for yourself, it
is a German CA that issues certs to higher education institutions. As has
been demonstrated (and agreed by the EFF people), DFN do not sign certs for
key signing keys they do not hold.

You can't calculate the number of CAs the way the EFF tried to. An
intermediate certificate does not equate to a CA. Pretending it does to
peddle an alternative PKI scheme calls into question their veracity.

I have tried to get members of the EFF board to look into this but they
never get back. Too much trouble to get it right.


Tying the notary log to namecoin seems to be completely pointless to me,
> unless the real objective is to promote namecoin. Why hook into namecoin
> rather than the market leader?
>
>
> What market leader?
>

I was under the impression that Bitcoin was the preferred currency of
libertopia. It is the only one that gets mention in the mainstream press.
It is not clear to me how namecoin can be part of BitCoin and another
currency.



> Given the success of the US government in shutting down eGold type schemes
> I am very skeptical about the stability of 'namecoin'. If we accept the
> purported scenarios that motivate the scheme then namecoin won't last very
> long.
>
>
> What eGold scheme are you comparing Namecoin to?
>

Gold Age, eGold, Liberty Reserve. All the ones that were taken apart by the
Feds.



> Are you sure you know what you're talking about here...? ;-)
>

I must admit that I find the scheme completely confused and assumes that I
know a lot that I do not.

I might be a little more inclined to make an effort if you hadn't attacked
me as being 'fraudulent' in your opening.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/