Topic: DIANNA: the IANA Decentralized design concept - page 5. (Read 16104 times)

If you guys haven't already, you might want to read my short post on how Namecoin might have been better from a few months ago.

I'm not really interested in the concept so much, so I did not read the 4 pages of prior discussion. If anything I say is redundant, please feel free to ignore it.

My comments on the wiki/main page:

• If the initial "block hashing algo" is defined in terms of merged-mining (and only merged mining - even if the "parent" is a minimal not-a-block), it's not intrusive; this was Satoshi's original recommendation before Bitcoin took off
• Merged mining does not in any way make the aux chains dependent on the parent chain.
• scrypt is an inferior proof-of-work than SHA256, as there is a large gap between commodity hardware (CPUs and GPUs) and specialized hardware (ASICs) in terms of performance

@ptshamrock

Sorry for outdated reply !
We thank you for your interest and especially for the pledge of hashing power for testing
of our network infrastructure.
I hope some day this Baby Di will become reality,
But we at the  the very beginning right now, a lot yet to be done.

No, mining DIANNA blocks would be exclusively merged mining against Bitcoin blocks and no independent mining.

Mining will be performed with Bitcoin current difficulty. Plus PDiff addition. This makes DIANNA immunable to 51% attack.

PDiff = Sum(domain fees) / (BitcoinBlockReward + Sum(Bitcoin TR fees)). Measured in %. Its reasonable value will be from 0.00....001% to approximately 15%.

PDiff will be hardcore set by DIANNA network depending on DIANNA's blocks appear frequency. High frequency = high PDiff. Low frequency = low PDiff.

DIANNA will require from miners to Sum(domain fees) must match PDiff.

So to solve a DIANNA's block, miners will have to match this formula:

Sum(domain fees) = PDIff * (BitcoinBlockReward + Sum(Bitcoin TR fees))

Any difference will cause additional difficulty penalty.

Free domain transactions will be declined.

DIANNA will still have its own mining? I thought the new idea was that all mining will be done on Bitcoin only, with DIANNA just being a DHT block chain with each block verified by a hash in a Bitcoin block. So if someone wants to register a domain, they generate a hash that would include their domain registration, pay a miner or a mining pool a fee to mine a block that contains that hash, and once the Bitcoin block is mined, add a block to the DHT database with that block pointing to a Bitcoin block as proof of work. Market rates for domain registration will depend on how much pool operators want to charge to get custom signatures/hashes into blocks.
I guess that would still have problems with centralization and rates dropping to $0 though.

Enough trolling ))

So. We need a correct market price for domain transaction.

This price will be paid to miners and they will do the work on verification. So these money must have a ground in work. Otherwise there will be inflation, which is so scarried NameCoins, so they decided to destroy that money.

Where to get the correct correlation between paid money and corresponding work? This is built into bitcoin. Work is MHashes/sec, money is block reward.

As DIANNA is AUX'ed to bitcoin, its maximum block frequency will be bitcoin one, which will mean maximum network activity.

DIANNA's minimum block frequency would be zero, meaning minimum activity.

So the DIANNA announces: in this week PDiff is 10% (difficulty overhead).

All miners, when solving dianna block, must collect domain orders to match that PDiff.

If they have difficulties to collect so much orders, the dianna's block frequency will be lowered. So the dianna will announce lower PDiff on next week.

If they have overwhelming demand for domains, DIANNA's blocks will be appear more frequent. So DIANNA will announce higher PDiff on next week.

So the PDiff will set a required volume (in BTC) of domain operations per DIANNA block and it will be corrected according to network activity.

All of these money will be supplied by proportional miners work. No inflation, no speculation, no miners abuse activity.

thats not a pledge yet as i said soon to be 50ghash still takes some time ^^

throwing cat pics at each other is at least very humorous ^^

I am so sorry  
I apologize  for our project leader "pent"

Fellow bitcoiners, who were offended -- excuse him if you can.

Yesterday  he got tired from brainstorming
and have said here
some harsh words,
i believe when he will reappear here
he will apologize for himself.

namezcoin t'is broke! quickse dinana!   ZLOL  


sorry, I just had to...

I think bopth sides ( if u want to call them this,,because they are rather on the same side) have a lot to contribute..

The comunicative problems here may arise from different angles of obeservation & diffrent lanuages , language skills etc.

Please dont let bekome nitpickers here !

I think the Problem here is u are all very very bright individuals doing very important work and sometimes it is not easy to communicate a vision ..but hey thats what the market of ideas is for..we`ll how it all endes..but please stop hindering all this producitve work done with fighting !

I love to read you guys !   and if we get 2 working p2p dns systems who cares   i will use both for different things ^^

Love each other !

Just needs more vodka before Namecoin perestroika can begin.

Easy, easy, man. Let's be more constructive.

They really bored me

I can't get past the broken English, which may have something to do with the lack of nuance and communication.

Really? Listen, eagle-owl, if you wanna say something by subject, go ahead.

Your arguments consist of vaguely written documents and flow charts. Your amazing leap of logic is that burning a few coins for the name_firstupdate op will ZOMG! "destroy namecoin" (somehow, maybe) is ridiculous and, as yet, unsubstantiated in theory or practice.

And please do not put filthy words like that into my mouth, I never said anything like that.

All my arguments you already read and your answer was only "fuck off man, namecoin is fine".

To all NameCoin investors: I'll make you chance to stress test DIANNA. She is perfect. Don't worry. You are opposite to me, not me to you.

I think you chose not to debate because your arguments are vague and full of holes. You have oft repeated this "going to destroy namecoin", but that is as good as the argument gets, that you have repeated it many times doesn't make it more or less truthful.

But each to its own and the proof of the pudding is always is in the eating ... let me know when DIANNA is ready for "stress testing", I'll go sharpen up some 'test' tools.

You remind me the words of Alan Greenspan: "US debt is not a problem, we always can print this money".

Well, I dont see the sense in continuing this debate if you dont understand that every work must be paid.

The hotel owner is not a person but the network as a whole. the money destroyed is the fee payed for the domains.

destroying coins really is not a problem at all. new coins are being mined. limits could be raised - while at the moment despite all the destruction coins are still too cheap.






NameCoin is not really vulnerable to a 51% attack. because of merged mining it is much much safer than all the other forks. From the difficulty I estimate the Namecoin hashrate to be 40% of the Bitcoin hashrate - that means not even deepbit could 51% attack it.
In my eyes it is the most secure cryptocurrency next to bitcoin - though being a currency is not a even particular goal.

edit 2012-02-24: oops, I got that one wrong - deepbit sure could run a successful 51% attack, but only deepbit. And I trust Tycho more than other pool operators.

I will only believe you can build a system as safe when I see it working.


imho the price of namecoins should be just so high that domain hoarding/squatting is prevented. actually the only reason for namecoins having a value is to do that and to guarantee mining.

if I could set a price it would be $1/year now and $5/year once it is established (=supported by mainstream dns servers)



Please understand I enjoy your interest and work for decentralized dns very much - it might even give some additional momentum to Namecoin.
The day might come when bitcoin will desperately need p2p dns. But I think you approach is wrong or at least the reasons you give don't make sense to me.