[Cryptography] A naming and key distribution infrastructure for the Mesh

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:01 AM Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22/09/2020 16:55, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > What is not OK is the SMTP model where
> > the email address is tied to the service provider so that changing email
> > providers incurs an enormous switching cost.
>
> My email used to be **** at zen.co.uk, but I changed it to **** at
> tsto.co.uk.
>
> I did not own zen.co.uk, but I now own tsto.co.uk - or at least
> exclusively rent it from ICANN/Nominet/my registrar or whoever with a
> sort-of guarantee that as long as I pay the rent I can't be evicted.
>

No, you don't own it. You rent it. That is the difference between a Mesh
name and an ICANN name.

If you have @tsto it is yours forever unless it is reassigned because of a
trademark issue. And we can make the limits on that type of reassignment
far more stringent than ICANN's rules that are tilted to the IPR sharks.

ICANN registries have to work night and day to maintain your record. My
architecture only ever has to respond when you decide to change your
service provider. And I have included a number of free changes of service
in the base cost of the name so you can't be extorted on that.

Should my name registry default, all the data is stored in the public log
which is replicated at every MSP. So it is a trivial matter for them to
roll out a fork of the name service. The name service only maintains its
position as long as it is generally considered to be doing the right thing.
In other words, there is accountability.

> User's can't be in control if they are chained to the
> > service provider.
>
> Which is exactly what is happening in your system, except it is the name
> provider, not the messaging service, to whom the user is tied.
>

I have tried a number of different designs. The problem is that if you try
to go fully peer-to-peer, you end up in a situation where there is
certainly a huge imbalance in power but nobody can be held responsible for
their actions. The BitCoin world shows this sort of behavior. Rather than
get hung up on ideology, I would prefer to have an organization but
minimize its authority to the absolute minimum and hold it accountable for
the rest.


In the m-o-o-t name system there is are no ties at all. Anyone can
> operate a registry and the user can use any registry service. Registries
> which are noticeably incomplete will soon go out of business.
>
> Names are generated at random by the user. He doesn't get to choose the
> name [1]. Random names mean no trademark disputes, and particular names
> are not especially valuable.
>

That is another approach. But I think it clear that people really do want
the option of a vanity name. Sure it adds some cost. But it creates vastly
more revenues and allows the Mesh Naming System to replace the corrupted
ICANN scheme.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20200928/527e8e61/attachment.htm>