As an outside observer, I have to say I also found Peter's sardonic message
tone inappropriate for furthering the discussion.
--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and d
Mike,
In all seriousness, are you on the payroll of the NSA or similar to
repeatedly attempt to introduce privacy leaks[1] and weaknesses[2] into the
ecosystem not to mention logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks;
disruption[3] and FUD[4]?
Why do you answer objections by hand waving and misdi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 29 December 2014 12:49:45 CET, Thomas Zander wrote:
>On Monday 29. December 2014 11.30.42 Mike Hearn wrote:
>> With the current DNS protocol you get an all or nothing choice
>
>Its a seed. Not the protocol itself.
>
>> Firstly, Peter, get help.
On Monday 29. December 2014 11.30.42 Mike Hearn wrote:
> With the current DNS protocol you get an all or nothing choice
Its a seed. Not the protocol itself.
> Firstly, Peter, get help. I'm serious.
I think most would agree with me that, Mike, this answer is not just a little
over the line, its u
>
> Can you explain further where limitations and problems were hit?
>
Well, look at the feature list :)
The biggest need from my POV is querying support. It's awkward to try and
retrofit flexible key=value pair queries onto DNS, it just wasn't designed
for that. With HTTP it's easy. This will be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
A big one is the privacy is way too good: every DNS request goes through
multiple levels of caching and indirection, so there's no way to figure out who
made the request to subject them additional targeting.
A connection-oriented protocol gets rid
On Sunday 28. December 2014 18.25.29 Mike Hearn wrote:
> Lately we have been bumping up against the limitations of DNS as a protocol
> for learning about the p2p network.
Can you explain further where limitations and problems were hit?
--
Thomas Zander
--
7 matches
Mail list logo
