[dangerface]

You claim here that there is a cost to creating the domain but rule out Ens because it has a cost? You can't make both claims. You can generate Ethereum and buy domains with it much in the same way you do here.

You rule out DNS as it doesn't have a standard registration but IRC doesn't have a standard way to register channels nickserv isn't on all IRC and they have different implementations.

IRC is not distributed it's owned by a centralised provider who has complete control, they can trivially take over any domain they want.

IRC has no consensus mechanisms a netsplit would make it trivial to create duplicate channels on the same IRC network.

You check channel availability then register, this by definition isn't atomic, it's a race condition between check and register. You need a way to wrap this in a transaction to prevent the race condition. IRC provides no way to do transactions. Even registering a channel on a network is not atomic because of the potential of netsplits, which is stated in the rfc.

How are networks choosen and distributed? You picked 11 random servers that meet your requirements. If I pick 11 random servers how are their ips shared? Traditionally this is done with DNS but since you are trying to replace this requiring it is odd, how do you stop some one just hijacking your DNS once that problem is solved your scheme becomes pointless.

If you expect everyone to use the same 11 servers this isn't distributed, it's centralised to 11 servers you can't trust.

I think you are under the impression that IRC is distributed and so if you build a secure system on top of it, then the system as a whole will be secure and distributed. The problem is that IRC isn't secure or distributed it's centralised with no Byzantine fault tolerance.

I understand you check multiple channels/networks in an attempt to provide this protection but the underlying servers can do anything they want and there is nothing you can do about that. Finally getting to the point of being on IRC and checking a channel has a lot of attack points none of which are accounted for.

The difficult part of any distributed bysentain tolerant system is the distributed bysentain problem IRC doesn't solve this problem and your scheme outsources it to IRC.

Charcircuit is just telling you the truth you don't want to accept.

[hanniabu]

> You claim here that there is a cost to creating the domain but rule out Ens because it has a cost? You can't make both claims

It's HN, they don't understand how blinded they are by their bias against blockchain. I see these contradictions all the time and have learned it's pointless to reply.

[Uptrenda]

I see what you're saying but your whole argument seems extremely black and white. It's like: you're saying that because there's a theoretical scenario where every server can over-take a name then the system as a whole isn't valid which just isn't true. A consensus system doesn't need to provide every property of a blockchain for it to be valid. Just good enough security for the problems that it solves.

>You claim here that there is a cost to creating the domain but rule out Ens because it has a cost? You can't make both claims. You can generate Ethereum and buy domains with it much in the same way you do here.

While technically true, your statements about Ethereum are misleading because as you know -- it is impractical for any random person to 'just generate Ethereum' with their computers and use it to pay for transactions. It's like you tried to make a technical argument but over-simplified it too much and left out key details for it to be meaningful.

>IRC is not distributed it's owned by a centralised provider who has complete control, >IRC has no consensus mechanisms a netsplit would make it trivial to create duplicate channels on the same IRC network.

This is true, but my design uses multiple servers. Netsplits only effect one IRC network. I am using multiple discrete networks. For the purposes of consensus it doesn't effect the software.

>You check channel availability then register, this by definition isn't atomic, it's a race condition between check and register. You need a way to wrap this in a transaction to prevent the race condition.

This is true but its also irrelevant. Either the register function manages to register enough names to meet the minimum threshold for success or it doesn't and the user can choose a different name. The design of the system minimizes such a scenario as unique TLDs, names, and passwords mitigate the potential for conflicts.

>Traditionally this is done with DNS but since you are trying to replace this requiring it is odd, how do you stop some one just hijacking your DNS once that problem is solved your scheme becomes pointless.

Every peer-to-peer application has the same issue including Bitcoin and Ethereum. It's not an issue with DNS. It's that there needs to be an initial way to know details about the network. This is called 'bootstrapping.' For now -- this is done by having a list of server IPs stored inside the software which is uploaded to a few places. Github and Pypi.

>it's centralised to 11 servers you can't trust.

This feel like you're just playing word games that mean nothing. Decentralization refers to network topologies and governmental designs wherein a single authority cannot control a system. Such a property is true about the system I've built by requiring a threshold of servers for agreement. A server doesn't individually have the power to control a name. So no it's not 'centralized.'

>I understand you check multiple channels/networks in an attempt to provide this protection but the underlying servers can do anything they want and there is nothing you can do about that

I think you've managed to miss the point of this design. It does provide a simple consensus mechanism across servers. It is mentioned in the fourth section titled 'How it should work.' I think most of your post is based on the misunderstanding that this system is simply load-balanced and doesn't include a consensus mechanism.

[dangerface]

Since you don't use IRC for anything more than an unreliable and easily spoofable key value store, why bother with implementing an IRC client? You could easily write a client server on UDP 58 client sends the key and server replies the value. Create a list of 13 IP we just trust and run your dnssec on top of that? Ez