Hacker News Reader

Comment by listening | Hacker News Reader

gvb is correct. Local cache is the way to go. Some have known this for a long time. SOPA could be a blessing in disguise if the meme spreads. Cache poisoning becomes irrelevent.

If SOPA neuters search engines, maybe users will resort to their own scans of port 80 (or whatever we designate to the "public" port) to find websites. The legality of scanning, and what is and is not public, may become a hot issue. We may get some legal clarity.

There's a decent comment to the blog post. This is not rocket science to understand. This could (unforseeably) spell the end for ICANN and the vast domain squatting business.

A user can attach any name he wants to an IP number.

View on HN

If an IP hosts multiple sites, you'd need to figure out the correct http HOST header to send it, unless you're use a static IP for every site. Most web hosts are using name-based virtualhosts: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/vhosts/

We implement both name- and ip-based vhosts, but only for sites with dedicated IPs (read: sites that need a dedicated IP for SSL.) You can do SSL on a shared IP, but it gets more complicated. Cloudflare does it by using a cert with multiple "certificate subject alt names", but security / site spoofing would still be an issue if you're ditching SSL at the same time (which would be a good idea).

This is the /real/ web 2.0...maybe even web 3.0: peer-to-peer hosting without ICANN or Verisign and co. We can do it, and people are working on building it right now. Reddit has Meshnet and NameCoin seems like a good idea. Now we just need a similar solution for SSL and a good way to host/update things. The future looks bleak for ISPs, CAs, registrars, and non-free countries.

There is a solution for SSL. Of course it's not SSL, it's more secure and it's faster.

You can set several "domain names" (hostnames) for a server.

There is a working prototype.

Seek with open mind and ye shall find.

I agree what you allude to is the real web 3.0 but, imo, it's not accurate to call it "web 3.0" because it's more than just "the web". Lots more than just web servers will run on a properly constructed peer-to-peer platform.

The public "web" is for Google and Facebook, their marketers and massive surveillance.

The internet is for users.

Err, perhaps I'm missing something, but what does this comment mean? Anything?

You're new to Hacker News, so I'm not going to downvote this, but a piece of advice: this sort of vague, useless-without-context comment adds nothing to the dialogue and will be driven down before you can blink.

Yes I agree that local cache is the way it will go, but I do not think think that SOPA will be a blessing in disguise. In fact, I think the internet will begin to more closely resemble the television industry, with a large technical underground. Perhaps some P2P DNS service will become popular, however if I recall correctly the bill outlaws blacklist evasion software.

SOPA does not have to pass to achieve the effect I'm suggesting. It will simply open people's eyes to the centralisation that is ongoing. The "single point of failure" will become evident and people will start to think.

No software is needed. Nor is a DNS. All modern PC OS's have the necessary capabilities built-in.

To connect to a website all that is needed is the knowledge of an IP number, a port (almost always 80) and, optionally, a hostname.

Is it really possible to prohibit this knowledge?

Imagine a world where there are "forbidden" phone numbers. However no one is forbidden from dialling them. The sole prohibition is against telling anyone what they are.

This is what SOPA blacklisting purports to achieve.

Sounds like a plan :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com