".tor" no longer?

[0aLTlGg8]

I've heard that the proposal for ".tor" has been changed. Does this mean I will not be able to have a site "my-site-name.tor"? (It was suggested that I ask biolizard89 about this, but as I'm not yet approved for private messaging, I'm asking here instead.)

[virtual_master]

I've heard that the proposal for ".tor" has been changed. Does this mean I will not be able to have a site "my-site-name.tor"? (It was suggested that I ask biolizard89 about this, but as I'm not yet approved for private messaging, I'm asking here instead.)

There was some agreements between the participants of the forum at that time(as you can see on some threads) to have ICANN, tor and I2P domains under the d/ namespace.
However that was after a former agreement that all domain names(inclusive those which are already reserved) should be reserved/renewed with a new dynamical fee structure.
That could be a length based fee structure(shorter names should cost more) or a a bid/contest based fee structure.
It wouldn't be the right way to give additional domains for domain squatters/investors for free and not even taking the actual 0.02 NMC.
At least that is my opinion.

[biolizard89]

I've heard that the proposal for ".tor" has been changed. Does this mean I will not be able to have a site "my-site-name.tor"? (It was suggested that I ask biolizard89 about this, but as I'm not yet approved for private messaging, I'm asking here instead.)

Hi,

There was a technical discussion a few months ago regarding two competing proposals for having Namecoin domains point to .onion/.i2p domains. One of the proposals was the d/ 2.0 namespace, the other proposal was the tor/ and i2p/ namespaces. After some discussion, it was agreed that .onion/.i2p domains would be handled by the d/ 2.0 namespace, and that the draft proposals for tor/ and i2p/ would be considered obsolete.

The major reason for this choice was so that a domain holder could, if desired, specify that they controlled both an IPv4/IPv6 name as well as a .onion/.i2p name. This was considered important because there are several websites which use both; e.g. DuckDuckGo's search engine and the currently-down WikiLeaks submission system.

No proposal was "changed." The tor/ proposal was always labeled as a draft, and it had not been subject to any kind of review that I know of. When review was applied, the conclusion was that the competing d/ 2.0 proposal was better-designed.

This doesn't affect you adversely. You can still register a Namecoin domain which points to a .onion site; you will just be using the d/ namespace instead of the tor/ namespace. Software is under development which will allow you to visit such domains in Firefox (not TorBrowser yet).

Hope this answers your question, let me know if you have any additional questions.

[0aLTlGg8]

Thanks for the replies. Sorry to be so much trouble, but I'm not familiar with the innards of the technology, and am having a hard time making heads or tails of the explanations given. Are you saying that I won't be able to get something like "mysite.tor"?

[biolizard89]

Thanks for the replies. Sorry to be so much trouble, but I'm not familiar with the innards of the technology, and am having a hard time making heads or tails of the explanations given. Are you saying that I won't be able to get something like "mysite.tor"?

Let's say you register the name "d/mysite" and point it at a .onion name. You'll be able to visit it using "mysite.bit" and your browser will automatically figure out to connect over Tor. If your browser doesn't support Tor, then you will be shown an error telling you to install Tor. There will also be a special syntax for forcing a domain to connect over Tor, e.g. "mysite._tor.bit", but you won't need to use that under standard circumstances.

This syntax is better for a few reasons: (1) It scales to a large number of resolvers without needing lots of top-level domains; (2) A single .bit domain can be accessible via Tor, I2P, IPv4, and IPv6 if desired, and the best one will be chosen automatically; (3) the user doesn't need to be concerned with which resolver is in use for each website; and (4) It doesn't infringe on Tor's trademark (I'm not a lawyer).

The code for this is basically finished; it will be released soon.

TL;DR: You'll be able to have mysite.bit point to a .onion address.

Hope this answers your question.

[phelix]

Thanks for the replies. Sorry to be so much trouble, but I'm not familiar with the innards of the technology, and am having a hard time making heads or tails of the explanations given. Are you saying that I won't be able to get something like "mysite.tor"?

Exactly.

You should be able to get "mysite.bit" and direct it to a Tor page in the future, though.

[0aLTlGg8]

Pretty much my only reason for asking about the Namecoin/Tor combination is because "tor" is the final syllable in a site name I wanted. Alas, it's not meant to be. Thanks.