Explicit Tor/I2P resolver selection for .bit

Post Reply
biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Explicit Tor/I2P resolver selection for .bit

Post by biolizard89 »

Hi guys,

I have a pull request pending for nmcontrol which allows explicit
resolver selection, so users can force a .bit domain to only resolve
to IPv4/IPv6/Tor/I2P by changing the domain name slightly.

Here's the syntax I'm using:

example.bit: default resolver settings
example._tor.bit: only Tor hidden services
example._i2p.bit: only I2P services
(similar for forcing IPv4/IPv6)

phelix is of the opinion that the following scheme is easier to type:

example.bit: default resolver settings
example.bittor: only Tor hidden services
example.biti2p: only I2P services

I agree that phelix's method is easier to type, but I'm wondering what
the implications are of using multiple TLD's to select resolver.
Let's assume that we plan to add additional resolvers in the future.
My method only requires an exact match on TLD to determine that it's a
Namecoin domain; phelix's method requires a substring ("starts with")
match on TLD to determine that it's a Namecoin domain.

Is that a problem for software developers? Is there a precedent to
using a "starts with" substring compare to indicate the owner of a TLD?

There's also the question of trademarks. Tor is trademarked. While
I2P is not to my knowledge a trademark, common decency requires acting
as though it is. Using "bit" as a TLD makes it extremely obvious that
the TLD was created by Namecoin and not by Tor. Does "bittor" convey
that as well? If someone Startpages for "bittor TLD", they'll
presumably find a Namecoin website rather than a Tor website. Is that
sufficient? I think it probably is, but I'm not 100% certain.

I'm open to switching to phelix's suggestion, but I'd like some
broader feedback from the people who might be developing for such things.

Thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

-Jeremy

(Cross-posting to the namecoin-dev e-mail list.)
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

phelix
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: Explicit Tor/I2P resolver selection for .bit

Post by phelix »

Note that bittor and so on was originally your suggestion, too. :mrgreen:

One thing we should remember in the back of our head is that at some day we might be forced to use something other than .bit for our domain endings - it certainly does not look like it today with the proposal to ICANN about reserving .bit for us but one can never know. Vinced I think already suggested we keep ".b" instead of ".bit" as a reserve tld.
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

virtual_master
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 12:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Explicit Tor/I2P resolver selection for .bit

Post by virtual_master »

I was originally on the opinion to use .tor but the complain not to use a registered trademark in the extension seems legitimate.
So .bittor would be also wrong as it is composed from the words bit+tor so is using a trademarked word.
However it would be nice to have a hint in the extension that is intended for Tor resolving.
The solution could be something similar but which doesn't contain tor as component word.
For ex
- .t could be OK and it is short also
- .ator could be OK also as it is an alone standing name(Ator a super hero like Conan) where tor is not part of a compound word
It is not containing the trademarked word tor just the same letters in the same order. A big difference semantically and juridically also.
- .thor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor
- .gator , which is building gate, derivative word from gate, not so short but very suggestive
http://namecoinia.org/
Calendars for free to print: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF Protect the Environment with Namecoin: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF
BTC: 15KXVQv7UGtUoTe5VNWXT1bMz46MXuePba | NMC: NABFA31b3x7CvhKMxcipUqA3TnKsNfCC7S

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Explicit Tor/I2P resolver selection for .bit

Post by biolizard89 »

virtual_master wrote:I was originally on the opinion to use .tor but the complain not to use a registered trademark in the extension seems legitimate.
So .bittor would be also wrong as it is composed from the words bit+tor so is using a trademarked word.
However it would be nice to have a hint in the extension that is intended for Tor resolving.
The solution could be something similar but which doesn't contain tor as component word.
For ex
- .t could be OK and it is short also
- .ator could be OK also as it is an alone standing name(Ator a super hero like Conan) where tor is not part of a compound word
It is not containing the trademarked word tor just the same letters in the same order. A big difference semantically and juridically also.
- .thor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor
- .gator , which is building gate, derivative word from gate, not so short but very suggestive
I think generally trademarks don't preclude using the name, as long as it is obvious that our usage is not endorsed by the trademark holder. E.g. .tor might appear to be endorsed by Tor, but .bittor doesn't give that appearance nearly as much. If someone Googles for ".tor" they'll probably find Tor-related stuff, while Googling for ".bittor" will probably find us. So I don't believe trademarks are going to be an issue there. (But if someone knows a lawyer, feel free to chime in.)

Also keep in mind that "example.bittor" is an alternative to "example.bit", which will typically give the same website. So "bit" should definitely still be there. Other issue is that we might add new resolvers; we need an unambiguous way to recognize .bit-based domains. With _tor.bit that's easy, it's just the .bit TLD. With .bittor it's still relatively easy, just do a "starts with" compare on the TLD.

I'm leaning toward .bittor unless someone can provide an example of a technical application that it will mess up.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

John Kenney
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:20 pm
os: linux
Location: Sheffield, England
Contact:

Re: Explicit Tor/I2P resolver selection for .bit

Post by John Kenney »

Maybe just expand the user preferences in freespeechme & nmcontrol so it's easier to set a priority for resolution methods for each site.

virtual_master
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 12:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Explicit Tor/I2P resolver selection for .bit

Post by virtual_master »

http://namecoinia.org/
Calendars for free to print: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF Protect the Environment with Namecoin: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF
BTC: 15KXVQv7UGtUoTe5VNWXT1bMz46MXuePba | NMC: NABFA31b3x7CvhKMxcipUqA3TnKsNfCC7S

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Explicit Tor/I2P resolver selection for .bit

Post by biolizard89 »

John Kenney wrote:Maybe just expand the user preferences in freespeechme & nmcontrol so it's easier to set a priority for resolution methods for each site.
Personally I think this is a documentation issue rather than a code issue. Although I guess I could add a feature where when you try to access a disallowed resolver it actually gives you a link you can click to enable it. Feel free to file a GitHub issue for both of those issues on namecoin/Convergence.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

Post Reply