Quote from: Mike Hearn on June 02, 2014, 12:58:34 PM

Quote from: benjyz on June 02, 2014, 09:37:54 AM

CA's are "funded by their users"? How so?

Er, they're funded by the people who buy certificates, i.e. their users. I know how CAs work thanks.

Just numerically, this is true. There are 7 directory authorities that matter in Tor, vs over 100 certificate authorities.

CA's are not independent actors. There is 1 (one) root for the Internet's DNS. What any user thinks about how the DNS performs is completely irrelevant. The DNS is controlled by ICANN and various corporations with some interference of governments. If I don't like how the system works there is nothing I can do. There is no feedback from users, other than through corrupted channels. In Namecoin users can suggest changes. It solves the problem of key storage, but unfortunately not the problem of key <> identity assignment. The original BitDNS discussion contained some interesting material on the subject.

Quote

If I'm following you correctly, you think that there should be no courts because they can't help in all disputes? That every transaction should be spelled out in complete detail, even though it is pointless because neither party needs to follow it?

Well, there is a tension between those who want to have a Bitcoin system which operates above the law (darkmarkets) and those who want to integrate it with law (US law, I presume). I don't have an opinion, but one should recognize what this is about. One can start with the simple question what actually happens if two people transact on a public network with untraceable cash. What language does one use to describe the process ("merchant", "customer"), what is the role of intermediaries of all sorts (courts, law enforcement, transportation systems, etc.). I believe it's impossible to make any sense of this by focusing on "technical" issues alone. People on the Bitcoin dev list actually believe that economics is off-topic. Well, that leads to pretty strange and unproductive discussions.