rich1.0npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uhttps://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0unjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2013-12-08 📝 Original message:I too would be against the foundation taking control of hosting or the domain. I have no reason at this time not to trust them, by checks and balances are a good thing. On Dec 8, 2013 12:29 PM, "Mike Hearn" <mike at plan99.net> wrote: > 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 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. > > 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 > > 3) Where does the server go? Ideally, a hosting provider that accepts > Bitcoin of course! > > 4) Who admins it? > > 5) Who controls DNS for it? > > Right now I think Sirius still owns DNS for bitcoin.org which is > nonsense. He needs to pass it on to someone who is actually still involved > with the project. Again, the most obvious neutral candidate would be the > Foundation. > > So I think it's a good idea but there's a fair amount of work here. The > primary upside I see is that it opens the potential for adding > interactive/server-side code in future if we decide that would be useful. > > > > On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Drak <drak at zikula.org> wrote: >> > BGP redirection is a reality and can be exploited without much >> >> You're managing to argue against SSL. Because it actually provides >> basically protection against an attacker who can actively intercept >> traffic to the server. Against that threat model SSL is clearly— based >> on your comments— providing a false sense of security. >> >> We _do_ have protection that protect against that— the pgp signature, >> but they are far from a solution since people do not check that. >> >> (I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have it, I'm suggesting you stop >> arguing SSL provides protection it doesn't before you manage to change >> my mind!) >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131208/17fae2d5/attachment.html>