<unnamed>

Public Key

npub16lyqvgruy8k0mmn9f3gqr69w0xlahmzlc6x6lq95amk6uppffm3q69pqjm

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsd0jqxyp7zrm8aaej5c5qpazh8n07ma30udrd0sz6wamdwqs55acspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsvxsdw5

Publishing to

relay.snort.social

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:10:29 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-12-08
📝 Original message:> > 4) Who admins it?
>
> Obviously, I thought it would be important that the server is owned by
> someone who can be trusted, with ssh access for all core developers.
>
>
> That is a really bad idea. If there is not a CLEAR answer to "who
> admins it", there will be a bunch of "I thought YOU were applying
> security patches... no, I thought YOU were..." the first time it gets
> hacked.
>
> So, the question is: who wants to take responsibility for keeping
> bitcoin.org <http://bitcoin.org> safe and secure?
>
> I am not going to do that, I've got too many other things to worry
> about. It is exactly the type of thing the Foundation was setup to do,
> but if y'all want to create some other organization to do it, then
> please make it happen.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
I fully agree that someone *must* be assigned to the task, otherwise
it's better keeping current hosting.
Perhaps that was implicit, but I can take this responsibility so long as
I can be replaced if required for any reason. On this regard, I agree
that the Foundation funding / owning / securing the server
infrastructure is a much better long term strategy.
This said, I also agree that it is a better idea to keep the domain and
website content independently owned and managed, for the reasons stated
by Gregory Maxwell.
If there isn't a good consensus on one of the two options I suggested, I
vote we don't lose more time on this question and keep focus with bigger
priorities.

2023-06-07 15:10:28 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-12-08
📝 Original message:> Issues that would need to be resolved:
>
> 1) Who pays for it? Most obvious answer: Foundation. However there's
> currently a fairly clear line between the foundation website and the
> bitcoin.org <http://bitcoin.org> website. I personally am fine with the
> bitcoin foundation funding the website, it's a lot closer to the bitcoin
> community than github. But some people might care. So next step would be
> to contact the Foundation board and see if they're willing to fund it.
Actually I might find way to fund it. But I needed to have ACK &
comments from developers before anything.
> 2) Anti-DoS? I assume github handles this at the moment, though I doubt
> there's anything to be gained from DoSing the informational website
That is a fair question, we will need anti-DDoS. Unless something better
(and affordable) can be recommended, this would yet put another Bitcoin
website under CloudFlare.
> 4) Who admins it?
Obviously, I thought it would be important that the server is owned by
someone who can be trusted, with ssh access for all core developers.
> 5) Who controls DNS for it?
I'm not sure we'll get any change on this level. I have no idea if the
domain is in good hands, except for the fact that nothing bad happened
thus far. If anything, moving it to core developers (as intended when
the domain was registered) would make more sense IMO. But again, is it
possible, I don't know.

2023-06-07 15:10:24 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-12-07
📝 Original message:I would like to know what are your thoughts on moving bitcoin.org on a
dedicated server with a SSL certificate?
I am considering the idea more seriously, but I'd like some feedback
before taking steps.
Saïvann

2023-06-07 15:10:24 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-12-08
📝 Original message:Forward secrecy:
I was definitively already interested in using this.
Binaries:
Sourceforge is not encrypted, actually. Although binaries hosting /
sharing could be a separate subject discussed later I think.
Revocation:
I guess we could just buy another SSL cert from another CA (I mean, if
that really happens). There's a few ones that are not US based.
Decentralization:
So long as we actually use DNS, the website is centralized :( However,
its content isn't (can be forked on GitHub), but regarding the domain
name, there is not much we can do against this AFAIK.
Saïvann
Le 2013-12-07 22:38, Odinn Cyberguerrilla a écrit :
> Hello, re. the dedicated server for bitcoin.org idea, I have a few thoughts
>
> 1) I have commented in a blogpost of August 2013 at
> https://odinn.cyberguerrilla.org/ with some thoughts relative to possible
> issues with CA related to bitcoin.org - where I mentioned something
> relative to the DigiCert certificate,
> "DigiCert “may revoke a Certificate, without notice, for the reasons
> stated in the CPS, including if DigiCert reasonably believes that” (…)
> “Applicant is added to a government list of prohibited persons or entities
> or is operating from a prohibited destination under the laws of the United
> States” (…) “the Private Key associated with a Certificate was disclosed
> or Compromised”"
> In the same post I mentioned
> "Bitcoin.org has no certificate, no encryption — a situation which has its
> own obvious problems. Bitcoin.org currently sends users to download the
> bitcoin-qt client from sourceforge. Sourceforge is encrypted and has a
> certificate based on GeoTrust:
> https://www.geotrust.com/resources/repository/legal/"
>
> (Currently (Dec. 7, 2013) bitcoin.org shows as 'not verified' and 'not
> encrypted' examining it in a cursory fashion w/ Chrome)
>
> Not sure how this would work, but it would be nice to see the content at
> bitcoin.org encrypted, of course, but also further decentralized? how many
> mirrors are there of bitcoin.org - not sure, but a few things that come to
> mind when thinking of this are Tahoe-LAFS and also .bit stuff (namecoin).
> There are many ways to decentralize something but that is just something
> that comes to mind.
>
> This has been discussed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=16312.0
> ('Is Bitcoin.org a weakness of bitcoin?) in the past and see also this
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119652.0 which discusses mirroring
> of certain content
>
> Some things to think about.
>
>> I would like to know what are your thoughts on moving bitcoin.org on a
>> dedicated server with a SSL certificate?
>>
>> I am considering the idea more seriously, but I'd like some feedback
>> before taking steps.
>>
>> Saïvann
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK
>> Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.
>> Download it for free now!
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK
> Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.
> Download it for free now!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>