wav-part

6 ms·

1.
by wav-part 7y ago
Ultrawealthy Ought to Help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs
2.
by wav-part 7y ago
You are overlooking a simple fact: Rich dont want to pay taxes. You will always have problems when taking from the rich. 800 years ago It was barron rebellion (Magna Carta). Now its army of lawyers and gutted IRS. IMO War between taxman and
3.
by wav-part 8y ago
Call it DNSSEC or whatever, DNS needs more crypto. At present security of DNS rely on manual intervention, 2FA, "multi-perspective DNS lookups" and other rituals. That does not scale to 250M domains. Expect more hijacks until then
4.
by wav-part 8y ago
DNSSEC+DANE replaces registrars. The entity would push signed request directly to tld.
5.
by wav-part 8y ago
Or who would lose from DNSSEC getting adopted ? CAs. This is a fight for cert revenue: CAs vs ICANN.
6.
by wav-part 8y ago
Its not like Corporations can pay someone else, say US or China, to protect their assets and people. US totally wont f k EUs shit up for few hundreds of billions. No sir, countries can seize and kidnap without consequences, because muh sov
7.
by wav-part 8y ago
Case in point: 2018 Federal taxes centralized $3.4T in the hands of 300 people.
8.
by wav-part 8y ago
Which gov gets the money and why ?
9.
by wav-part 8y ago
> Alternatively, they introduce an involatile shared fiction into the public conscious, that justifies their position Like democracy=good, populism=bad ?
10.
by wav-part 8y ago
How does a democracy (or any governance system backed by public will) survive if there is a 50/50 split in public will ?
11.
by wav-part 8y ago
We do not consume energy. We consume goods and services which require energy to produce. This model completely ignores past and future advancments in energy efficieny.
12.
by wav-part 8y ago
Businesses did not make buildings safer just because someone told them to. It is naturally considered a bad idea to kill your customers. Businesses would always create an environment that generate more profit. Safer establishments are one o
13.
by wav-part 8y ago
What people did before there were fire code ? How did they get out ?
14.
by wav-part 8y ago
Browser vendors (specifically all DNS users) have the option. They can do it, if IANA fails at the job of being a dnsroot. Disruption is inversely proportional to consensus. If everyone do it, there is no disruption. Some disruption is una
15.
by wav-part 8y ago
Anyone can fork DNS. Its just a (name, key) map. As long as its done with enough consensus , it can be done. Mismanagement of .com is serious enough to demand that kind of change. Lets say .com gets mismanaged. Community is infurious. fi
16.
by wav-part 8y ago
You is firefox/chrome/etc. Yes you can. The ownership of .com is not as exclusive/protected as .xxx or xxx.com. Thus the firefox/chrome/etc can map it to anyone they feel. Considering so many high value .com subname
17.
by wav-part 8y ago
No. You just map .com to another key with an agreement that new .com owner pre signs and map existing .com subs the right way . An unaware xxx.com does not need to do anything. As long as its done publically with a bang and enough consensu
18.
by wav-part 8y ago
Current: Google need to watch all CAs. DNSSEC: Google need to watch .com and dnsroot. Which one is better ? ---- (I am ratelimited so posting here rather than reply to the child post by tptacek https://news.ycombinator.com/i
19.
by wav-part 8y ago
I am not suggesting every client do their own mapping, that is not a naming system at all. There has to be very large consenus for a naming system to be effective. I just pointed that out to show that dns is not under any gov control. Its u
20.
by wav-part 8y ago
Except there has to be a crypto proof why Google owns google.com not me. That means we need to secure dns. Then why need CAs at all ? Whats the point ?
21.
by wav-part 8y ago
> No. You have to trust all the CAs, and the governments that control the DNS. Not in DNSSEC. .xxx need only trust dnsroot. yyy.xxx need only trust .yyy and dnsroot. firefox/chrome/etc with support from important orgs with high
22.
by wav-part 8y ago
You have to trust somone under DNS. The only trustless naming system I can think of is over a PoWChain (eg example.btc). Still you have 3 choices in DNSSEC/DANE, - get a .xxx, trust dnsroot. - get a .xxx (when .xxx is as easy to
23.
by wav-part 8y ago
Much better than (CA0 || CA1 || ... ). All it takes is one CA out of 10s of independent CAs to misbehave to insecure whole tls. In DNSSEC/DANE, world only has to watch one entity rather than 10s of entities.
24.
by wav-part 8y ago
Obviously the signing of example.com by .com must be secure itself. Otherwise no crypto delegation is secure, including tls signing. > where DANE replaces X.509 CAs Much easier migration actually. Just patch all firefox/etc to accep
25.
by wav-part 8y ago
No he would use the same talent to minimize taxes. Why would anyone expect otherwise lol ?
26.
by wav-part 8y ago
The problem: I am asked to give up privacy. What I am getting in return, I can get more cheapely. I can avoid sucker punchers. No need to give up privacy. I can avoid going outside a walled garden. No need to give up privacy. You seem to be
27.
by wav-part 8y ago
Ok how does having access to sucker puncher's phone help me here ? I will still die.
28.
by wav-part 8y ago
You can recover from a punch. You cant undelete your data once it falls on wrong hands and gets used against you (eg debt/purchase history). As I said there are already enough physical measures (defence, surveillance etc) that can ensu
29.
by wav-part 8y ago
> a judge Thats the problem here. Computers (smartphone/laptop/server/toaster/etc) are/will continue to hold most intimate and private data about a individual. Do you want all that disclosed on one person'
30.
by wav-part 9y ago
Ah did not know that. Replace netflix with a company with no EU establishment.

More ›