Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VpVC4-0001S9-66 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 03:38:08 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender) client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net; Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1VpVC2-0007mP-NK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 03:38:08 +0000 Received: from fruiteater.riseup.net (fruiteater-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF67B4B53F for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 19:38:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla@fruiteater.riseup.net) with ESMTPSA id 5EF87D61 Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user odinn.cyberguerrilla) by fruiteater.riseup.net with HTTP; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 19:38:00 -0800 Message-ID: <1795f3067ba3fcdd0caf978cc59ff024.squirrel@fruiteater.riseup.net> In-Reply-To: <52A3C8A5.7010606@gmail.com> References: <52A3C8A5.7010606@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 19:38:00 -0800 From: "Odinn Cyberguerrilla" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.8 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: doubleclick.net] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines X-Headers-End: 1VpVC2-0007mP-NK Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Dedicated server for bitcoin.org, your thoughts? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 03:38:08 -0000 Hello, re. the dedicated server for bitcoin.org idea, I have a few though= ts 1) I have commented in a blogpost of August 2013 at https://odinn.cyberguerrilla.org/ with some thoughts relative to possible issues with CA related to bitcoin.org - where I mentioned something relative to the DigiCert certificate, "DigiCert =E2=80=9Cmay revoke a Certificate, without notice, for the reas= ons stated in the CPS, including if DigiCert reasonably believes that=E2=80=9D= (=E2=80=A6) =E2=80=9CApplicant is added to a government list of prohibited persons or= entities or is operating from a prohibited destination under the laws of the Unite= d States=E2=80=9D (=E2=80=A6) =E2=80=9Cthe Private Key associated with a Ce= rtificate was disclosed or Compromised=E2=80=9D" In the same post I mentioned "Bitcoin.org has no certificate, no encryption =E2=80=94 a situation whic= h has its own obvious problems. Bitcoin.org currently sends users to download the bitcoin-qt client from sourceforge. Sourceforge is encrypted and has a certificate based on GeoTrust: https://www.geotrust.com/resources/repository/legal/" (Currently (Dec. 7, 2013) bitcoin.org shows as 'not verified' and 'not encrypted' examining it in a cursory fashion w/ Chrome) Not sure how this would work, but it would be nice to see the content at bitcoin.org encrypted, of course, but also further decentralized? how man= y mirrors are there of bitcoin.org - not sure, but a few things that come t= o mind when thinking of this are Tahoe-LAFS and also .bit stuff (namecoin).= =20 There are many ways to decentralize something but that is just something that comes to mind. This has been discussed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D1631= 2.0 ('Is Bitcoin.org a weakness of bitcoin?) in the past and see also this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D119652.0 which discusses mirror= ing of certain content Some things to think about. > I would like to know what are your thoughts on moving bitcoin.org on a > dedicated server with a SSL certificate? > > I am considering the idea more seriously, but I'd like some feedback > before taking steps. > > Sa=C3=AFvann > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- > Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK > Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. > Download it for free now! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D111408631&iu=3D/4140/os= tg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >