Topic: BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 122742 times)

Sorry maybe i am ignorant, but is not simple to edit our etc/hosts config in order to create our domain and share it among people instead to make a cpu eater with crypt and decrypt.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.26742

Not really. It was a call to action to implement a registration system faster than our rival, but I don't think that's a requirement.

It needs to be decentralized. That way there is no way in hell for politicians to be able to remove DNS entries.

The discussion so far is:
-The blockchain should remain clean and tidy
-The network must not be fragmented

I support the latter and should add support asap.

EDIT: http://www.digitalpolicy.ca/Statement%20On%20Canadian%20Internet%20Sovereignty.pdf

I don't think it's clear there needs to be a different naming system. DNS is already distributed. These sites will move to non-US controlled TLDs and carry on just like WikiLeaks did.

The upkeep of alternative chains is not really an issue because with Satoshis plan, mining for additional chains is "free" beyond storage and whatever processing is required to enforce the rules of the system.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/reuters-full-tilt-poker-pokerstars-absolute-poker-charged-illegal-gambling-1020606/

Ladies and gentlemen, it become increasingly clear as to why we need a distirbuted DNS system. We have a 3500 BTC bounty incentive for you!

I haven't read this whole thread so this may have been suggested already.

Here is a solution for paying for upkeep of a dns chain. Have dns mining produce credits that are used to create a new domain name. Then provide a way for the credits and domain names to be traded contingent upon a payment to a certain bitcoin address showing up in the bitcoin block chain. I would think that amount of credits per block probably needs to increase over time rather than decrease like bitcoin does.

Transaction inputs and outputs contain "scripts", which provide very flexible ways to create different types of transactions (however most of this functionality is currently disabled in the official client).  Arbitrary data (of limited size) can be placed in these scripts.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#tx
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script

+ 1
Exactly, i thought that was decided long ago.

@phathash
Currently the only thing the blockchain are Bitcoin transactions. You can call that payload, if you want.

@kiba
Sorry, but I didn't read all pages, only the beginning and the end.

Can you link the post explaining who would rationally provide for the upkeep of a separate chain?

The expense of any chain is storage in the form of disk space and defence/upkeep in the form of compute power/electricity and bandwidth.
This must all be financed by the hosts = miners.

Bitcoin would still hold a special position, because it would be the unit of accounting for all other "transactions".
For example, for a BitDNS transaction with fee, you'd also need a Bitcoin transaction, solely for this fee.

The ability to use the blockchain as a service would provide a kind of real backing for Bitcoins.

Do you think that it would be too much data? The miners surely can meet supply and demand.

Isn't BitDNS Bounty (3500 BTC) for a system of this kind?
I'd start development, but I haven't even compiled Bitcoin, yet. Has somebody a guide for how to compile on Windows?
Starting from scratch is a little too much.

So there is no "payload" currently in transactions?

I thought we reached a consensus that the domain names will be outside of the main chain.

The discussion is not about the current protocol, but future extensions.

I don't see how any payload could be separated from the main chain.

This is my simple idea: enable the storage of any data in the main chain, for Bitcoin fees, at the miners discretion.

Hosts who do not understand a certain data type, ignore it, and those who do understand verify it.

I can't understand why this extra payload feature is in the protocol? Can nodes choose to ignore it?

I was looking at the common structures in the protocol specification. Where does it discuss the size of this payload?

OK, but has any final decision been made ?

Personally i hate bloat and i don't like the idea of storing non-currency data in the chain...

Under the plan by theymos, it would be stored in the bitcoin main chain.

satoshi suggested an alternative, where there would be multiple bitcoin chains, and the non-currency data such as BitDNS would be stored there instead of the main chain.

AFAIK, BitDNS data will not be stored in Bitcoin main chain... i thought this is already clear.

Would this payload "domainchain" proposes to use be stored in the block chain indefinitely? How big can the payload be and what is it's purpose in the protocol? Can nodes choose to ignore it?

If somebody is going to work on the code for this, please consider N alternative chains not just 2. I'm also interested in "BitX" for stuff related to online voting.

The real questions are around how do you cleanly separate the currency parts of BitCoin from the distributed quorum aspects.

(all that about a generalized merkel tree is fascinating and makes me think that I need to read up more on that, I think its compatible with what I am proposing below)

Excellent, I look forward to seeing the code

Though, this last exercise in figuring out payment or "rent" makes me think, maybe there is a bit more to flesh out at the base of the ideas. It seems to me that it would make more sense to associate a name with an "account" than with "a coin". I will try to explain what I mean in terms of bitcoin, since its what we all seem to know

What if we, starting with bitcoin, change the name to dnscoin, or something equally witty, add a couple of transaction types and change a few definitions. What if you were to say, that the value of every account, decreases by 1 unit every block. Then add a new transaction type that allows an account to assign a mapping to any, currently unused name.... 1 per account. The name becomes "unassigned" when the most recent account to map falls to a value of 0.

Obviously, we need to tweak the mining operations to provide more coins per block, or even build in an inflation to account for expanding need for names... but it easily makes "DNS Coins" something that one can trade for bitcoins. Perhaps allow an account to be "unmapped" and not subject to the implicit fee.

That seems easier to me than trying to coordinate bitcoin payments and having miners set fees etc. Just let them mine a the valuable resource, and sell it as they see fit.

So if each block generated 52,000 "dnscoins" then that would be enough to create 2 domains for 6 months a piece, or fund 1 for a year.... or 52,000 for 10 minutes... or however we want to make the numbers work out.

Interestingly, this would also make helping a friend very easy. If I see that your domain is about to run out of bitdns, I just take the address and send it some coin.... then settle up with you later in some other manner, or tell you to have a merry christmass. Hell, maybe I run a service that watches your domains and keeps them topped up from my reserve of dnscoin.

As the account owner, you can still kill the domain by unassigning it.

Rents should be due at specific bitcoin block #s so that any temporary forks on the bitcoin chain won't result in permanent forks on the BitDNS chain.  Once all miners see the same rent payment / non-payment at the said bitcoin block #, the fork will heal by global acceptance or rejection of the take-over block.  Might even want to have a "look-back" of a few hours in the bitcoin chain to eliminate this source of instability.