N/A
(0)
Posts: 17
Earned: 0.003 XMR
Tipped: 0 XMR
Credit first: the hosting is already in good shape. The server's at 1984 in Iceland, privacy-focused, free-speech-oriented, Monero-accepting, neutral jurisdiction. Domain's locked, registrant behind proxy. Where the data physically lives is handled well.
The domain is registered at GoDaddy (US) and the nameservers are GoDaddy's too (ns73/ns74.domaincontrol.com), so GoDaddy controls both the registration and the DNS. If they're ever compelled by a US court order or law-enforcement request, they can suspend the domain or null the DNS, and the Icelandic server just becomes unreachable by name; nobody can get to it via anonbazaar.com.
This isn't hypothetical, it's the single most-used takedown vector for sites like this. Look at Anna's Archive: the infrastructure survives fine, but the domains keep getting seized and the site vanishes for everyone until they scramble to a new one and re-propagate. Adversaries go after the domain precisely because it's the cheapest way to kill a site without touching a well-defended server. The domain is the highest-leverage, most-exposed layer, and right now it's sitting in US jurisdiction.
Two ways to improve it, and the team's best placed to weigh them:
**Option A, consolidate at 1984.** Simplest: registration, DNS, and hosting all under one aligned provider you already trust and pay in XMR. Fewer accounts to secure, one relationship, easiest to actually execute. Tradeoff: it concentrates everything at a single provider in a single jurisdiction, so 1984 itself becomes the one point that can take the whole stack down.
**Option B, split across two neutral providers.** Registrar at a specialized takedown-resistant outfit like Njalla (Sweden/Nevis, built specifically to hold domains on your behalf and resist exactly these requests, accepts XMR), hosting stays at 1984. More robust for an adversarial threat model: no single company or jurisdiction controls the whole stack, and an adversary has to break two resistant providers in two countries instead of one. Tradeoffs: more operational surface (two accounts, two relationships), and Njalla's model means they legally hold the domain on your behalf, so you're trading direct ownership for takedown-resistance, which not everyone's comfortable with.
Both are large improvements over the current setup, where the front door sits entirely on the most-compliant US registrar. Option A is the fast clean win; Option B is the more decentralization-faithful, harder-to-take-down setup at the cost of a bit more complexity. The team knows the project's risk tolerance and bandwidth best, so the call's yours, but either move closes the US chokepoint.
Edited: May 31 17:23
Tip Monero to SoulReaver 
8AJJt5FoxgKapYk69YgSLXPaSBYd88hghg32ie25ZXGSFFYgVeKT4ytLkPoCsnJGE3gQninbK6JDUAX4qNCRUqfXFwXe3Hm
Tip Firo to SoulReaver 
Publish Tip to SoulReaver