Talk:Alternative DNS root

A question

What about The Public Root? How does it fit in here? I'm not a DNS guru, so I leave the question to the experts. --Iromeister 21:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"Public Root" is the official root zone. It do not fit as an "Alternative" and it has its own page. SSPecter ^☎|✉ ♠ _{14:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)}.

It's not the official root zone (look at its list of root nameservers). So it should be mentioned in this article, if it's notable enough. (In fact, it's already listed in the article.) --Zundark 15:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Public Root" is more than notable; it's something one can realize after some research. goodone (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

dead .fur links

Both .fur links are currently dead. I didn't remove them because they may come online later. --roger6106 20:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidently fixed. Kind of unstable after a move, but we're working on it. --Dennis The TIger 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I marked the .fur TLD as no longer being in use, per the e-mail I had received from Dennis The Tiger. The S (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging alt-Root with alt-ICANN

since this was tagged on the main page, better discuss:

NO. Alt-roots are all about alternative DNS roots (a bad idea), while alternatives to ICANN are about alternative ways to manage the namespace. Some ICANN alternatives like alt-roots, I'm sure. But they are not the same thing. Alvestrand 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

204.237.9.157 (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC) YES, Or at least thats what I think you would have said after discovering the US goverment had taken over/imposed their will on ICANN.

Some cleanup

Changes some of the dodgy grammer referring to Dr. Emoto, as well as the claim that the fild "What the Bleep Do We Know" is a cult classic. It is neither old enough nor has the critical popularity to be considered so.

I've now removed all of the bloated stuff about the dotlove project. Since none of tge TLDs are functioning, and there seems to be nothing more than an image placeholder on their website, I get the impression that all the flapdoodle put up before was self-advertisement.

Alterations by ke6isf

Made a few notes on Cesidian and OpenNIC entries in here.

• .glue (cesidian, ONIC): .glue is an internal TLD that is pretty much reserved for tier one DNS on alt roots. See the OpenNIC page for an explanation of this - at least in OpenNIC, they are not registered to the general public; AMMV elsewhere.
• Cesidian alterations:
  • Unlinked article for Cesidian; it was deleted
  • Placing the OpenNIC TLDs in this list is redundant
  • Rewrite of description

Have fun.

--Dennis The TIger 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

.gbl

hello there,

should .gbl be included on this page or a related one in some way? microsoft corporation seems to use it at some occasions, but there is no documentation about it at all. a few people are speculating and many webmasters are wondering about it, especially about phx.gbl, see: http://artific.com/articles/2005/12/27/a_practically_u/

--Meinhard Benn 10:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be included. —Nightstallion (?) 20:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Revision}} - March 2008: This problem exists for more than 2 or 3 years... Anyone with any insight please include more information!

.gbl seems to be an internal Microsoft domain that leaks out either because their servers were not configured to hide their internal network or deliberately. Most of the reverse DNS entries that pointed at this domain have gone. It is still used for the message id's of all email from hotmail so I suggest adding in a category of popular internal domains, that accidentally escape onto the internet.

RonaldDuncan (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this work?

Do they need customers to configure their machines for this to have an effect? Will any ISPs support this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.115.212 (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Of course, if you set up your machine to resolve names with a DNS server which uses one of these alt roots -- I don't know any, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.9.235.53 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Does this idea exist yet?

Has anyone seriously proposed mapping natural language website names to ip addresses: "apple computer" instead of "www.apple.com", etc. If someone has proposed this, and gotten any notice about it, it should be written about somewhere on WP with links from articles like this. Let me put it this way: in 100 years maybe in 10 years, maybe in 5, we WILL have natural language URL's, and humans will NOT be typing in http:blablabla. we will be typing natural language searches, or speaking them, and getting accurate responses. I know search engines are getting there on this, but im talking about the revamping of the whole DNS.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

NameCoin notability

NameCoin is discussed often within BitCoin users. They are not necessarily webmasters, it's due to mining NameCoins is sometimes 1.5x more profittable.

There is a NameCoin entry in Bitcoin wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin

Several BTC exchanges also offer NMC currency exchange: https://btcex.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aekton (talk • contribs) 04:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

NameCoin was also mentioned in HabraHabr: http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/crypto/120015/ Aekton (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That in no way establishes notability. The bitcoin is definitely notable, but NameCoin clearly is not.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The way most of you treats "notability" in the tech world drives me crazy. NameCoin is clearly notable, i.e. it should be "noted" and cited inside such an article. Otherwise I would say, considering the small "mass notability" of alternative dns roots (and indeed of the whole DNS stuffs, since it's mostly a tech thing many people simply ignore), that the page "Alternative DNS root" itself lacks of notability. 151.27.169.225 (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)wherever I am

Google DNS

Does the Google DNS belong on this list? Unclevinny (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it turns out that Google DNS is not a new root, it's just replacing the local redirection services, so it doesn't belong on this list. (This is how network noobs like me describe it...) Unclevinny (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

.42 TLD

Another question: What about to include the .42 experiment (wiki dot 42registry dot org) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.229.14.189 (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Major Notability Concerns

I am removing all of the alt-roots not referenced at this time. Considering all that I'm removing is the name and a link to the website (this article is nearly a link list) there's no loss of unique content.

Many of these alt-roots are almost certainly not notable even if they are referenced once somewhere, but as long as they're referenced, I'll leave them alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.234.44 (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Open Root Server Network ≡ Open RSC ?

Is "Open Root Server Network" the same as "Open RSC"? Is either the same www.open-rsc.org I found mentioned in an old Internet Draft? DavidLeeLambert (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

DNSEEK

I'm removing DNSEEK, as even relative to other Alternative DNS Roots it doesn't appear to be noteworthy or referenced by anybody outside of some self-promotional posts on LowEndTalk. Pretty sure it just popped up a few days ago. -- Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 18:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears that DNSEEK isn't actually mention by independent sources at all. I recommend removal. Mkwia (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@[[User:Mkwia|Mkwia]

]: indeed, I already removed it once and s/he continues adding it again. I asked an admin to semi-protect it, so at least if it's added again they'll have to be logged in. I'm going to clean up this entire page and cite sources where needed because it appears none of them have sources linked :) -- Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 17:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing FurNIC

I'm removing FurNIC from the list as I can't confirm it actually runs root zones outside of OpenNIC. Either way, can't find too many examples of it's relevance from independent third parties. -- Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 22:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

ENS removal

It seems someone has quietly removed the section on ENS with the explanation that it was not notable. On Wikipedia, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article", see WP:NNC. I would like to point out that it was cited to Coindesk, which along with Bitcoin Magazine is generally regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia for matters relating to blockchains. It also seems the same editor has removed other articles on blockchain DNS frameworks which were cited to blogs. The editor did not remove entries for non-blockchain DNS schemes that do not cite reliable sources.

I had a look at the editor who removed the entry. His name is David Gerard and he wrote a book, "Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain" which criticizes blockchains and cryptocurrencies. I would think this is a potential conflict of interest. Afterall, wouldn't the existence of blockchain DNS challenge the primary argument of his book that the technology is useless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If you think you have a case against me, WP:COIN is there for you. (So far there have been 0 takers.) Coindesk is not acceptable for notability, and it's false that it's "generally accepted" - this is highly disputed. Do you have coverage of this thing in mainstream RSes, outside the crypto blogs? It needs notability to be put here, else the entry's just promotional - David Gerard (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability is not a required quality for the contents of articles - WP:NNC. If you have an issue with the article itself you may try to submit it to AfD for the whole thing as has been suggested early in this talk page. The topic of whether CoinDesk is a reliable source has been discussed on Wikipedia. In the last discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC_-_CoinDesk_as_a_source "An experienced editor is removing all CoinDesk references from cryptocurrency related articles on Wikipedia"). That editor is you. You are overreaching your authority on Wikipedia to remove all references to CoinDesk in violation of the general consensus. The Wikipedia guidelines for sources with no consensus recommend individual review - not blanket removal. See WP:MREL. Lastly, CoinDesk is not a blog.2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

List entries generally need to be notable - or they get removed as promotional. Please stop adding promotional material to Wikipedia. Also, you just reverted someone twice in violation of GS/Crypto (specifically WP:GS/Crypto#1RR), after you'd been notified and couldn't claim not to know - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This is incorrect. List entries do not need to be notable so long as the list itself is notable. There are some exceptions, i.e. "list of notable airline hijackings", but this is not one of those. Please refresh on the manual of style. As for your comment about GS, there are no active community sanctions on this article so I have not violated any policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is not specifically about blockchain, so I'm not sure to what extent GS/Crypto apply (admittedly though, I find GS somewhat more confusing to interpret than DS). I can't tell to what extent this constitutes spamming and promotion, but that is besides the point of the source in question not being a mainstream one. Please do not reinsert without securing consensus for inclusion, and otherwise, I'd recommend you subscribe to the bold, revert, discuss cycle. I've reverted and semiprotected the page for two weeks because the source was deemed to be subpar. El_C 00:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Existing Alternatives Section

The subsections on Namecoin and OpenNIC could use expanding considering they are seemingly notable enough to have their own articles. The non-defunct examples generally could use some updating and organization. Also perhaps changing the title of that section to just "Examples" or something? Seems redundant as it is currently. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 10:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)