Topic: DIANNA: the IANA Decentralized design concept - page 7. (Read 16101 times)

I should have made it clear:  I imagine there will be an arbitrary number of registrars. They will compete to provide the best service (fastest updates of the DNS database, lowest prices, etc).

If you were willing to do the proof-of-work and insert your own updates into the bitcoin block chain then you could be your own registrar (I assume most people won't be willing to setup the necessary software, run it, etc. just to register a couple of domain names).

I do not understand why in the basis of a decentralized system, you are going to add a centralized registrar?
We also need to minimize number parasitic financial intermediaries between the DNS and the client.

We do not need a center, deciding whether we can register the domain or not. We need a reliable and simple tool for decentralized storage of information on domains and how they fair / free registration, with minimal protection against cybersquatters.

In the Russian branch of the discussion I invited to discuss the proposals on the mechanism of domain registration and renewal through a decentralized auction. Maybe this idea will continue here.

Of course, namecoin implemented very crudely, ideally it should be a small add-on to bitcoin (as a means to create a reliable database and decentralized means of payment).

Payment for registration and renewal should be charged for maintenance and storage system bitcoin DNS database.
The current system of domain registration, and so looks like an auction between the client and the registrar / cybersquatters and rule 'the first man gets the oyster, the second man gets the shell'. Auto Auction for domain name registration will allow to realize the same thing but without the unnecessary middlemen.

But there are problems arising from the fact that mining pools control the network.
* open registration will allow pools-cybersquatters immediately register the same domain with zero cost (can put any commission, yet also get itself if they do not give out the transaction in the network prior to placement in to the blockchain)
* closed registration will be is technically difficult to implement because you must consider mechanisms for the simultaneous recording of the same domain by different users ... still all rested in the fact that the mining pools have the ability to control the priority between clients.

In any case, all the problems arising from the existence of large pools of mining, and the decision can be ideas development p2pool.

p.s. sorry for my English.

This is totally something new. My interpretation:

We will separate all participants by group:
1. Clients - they want domains
2. Mining pools - they do timestamping
3. Storage pools - they save the timestamped blocks
4. Need possible coordinators - registars. They take money from clients, pay part to miners for timestamping and pay part to storages for saving. And some part leave for themselfs.

The money will be any external financial structure: bitcoin or fiat - this is up to registars what to accept and how to pay to storage and miners pools. And not be an internal of system.

The DIANNA's block chain (to be stored at storage pools) is similar to bitcoin, but:
- Need to store only last TTL full blocks, all others are kept on each storage as headers. Since block with domains expires - system not need to know the full block, so block goes to history as its header.
- Instead of coin transactions there will be a domain transactions

The possible problem here is how to make consistent  block chain of last TTL block distributed by storage pools.

Template break.

Looks very interesting.

The funds sent to registar needs to be marked "for domain gavinandresen.dianna", to make miners and storages sure they processed real transaction request. So the extra information needs to added to scriptsig. So dianna will have an influence on bitcoin chain size. Or am I missed something?

Can this project merged somehow to the Yacy decentralized web search ?

Could you use a few different coins to add extra infallibility? Say Litecoin and bitcoin/namecoin. So you need all 3 working in unison or something.

Merged Timestamping :O

Bingo.

I really like your idea of scaling up difficulty based on the number of domain operations in a block to prevent the key:value database from growing arbitrarily big.

It seems to me that should be enough to make domain operation pricing correct; I don't see why there needs to be a block reward or fees, I assume the registrars will charge whatever they need to charge to make a profit, and I would strongly encourage you to avoid making the DNS system yet-another-currency.  I'd like to use dollars or euros or bitcoins (preferably bitcoins) to pay for my domain names, please.

I imagine a system something like:

+ I give some money to a registrar, and ask them to register/renew/transfer 'gavinandresen.dianna'

+ The registrar makes sure the register/renew/transfer operation is valid

+ The registrar bundles up a bunch of register/renew/transfer operations and then asks/pays a Bitcoin miner to merge-mine that hash to securely timestamp those changes

+ After they're timestamped, the registrar asks that all of those record changes be inserted into a shared distributed hash table, providing the DIANNA proof-of-work and the bitcoin block hash.

+ The nodes maintaining the shared DHT make sure the records have the right DIANNA proof-of-work, that the bitcoin block is valid, and that the changes aren't over-ridden by a later bitcoin block, and then update the records.

Why this is like that? Why bitcoin devs missed this crap? Mining pools are corruption possibility in system.

Build it with distributed P2Pool mining built in?

One more problem with this design. As suggested me in russian thread.

Mining pools can act in collusion to approve their own free domain transactions.

So. The 51% attack plust this one.

Need a way to get rid of mining pools existense in design.

Actually they are threat not only for dianna, but for bitcoin also. So much power in several hands is not good for all.

With mining pools I actually propose to take power away of several central Internet-orgs like IANA and ICANN and bring it to several pools (like Bitcoin did).

This is completely not right.

H?  I think your message got truncated.

....

Many people ask, how much domain will cost? Lets give a formula for people.

Okay. Lets give a name for DIANNA currency. It is DIAnna Coin: DIAC, diac, Diac.

The formula bellow follows the formula in document.

Let the difficulty overhead is (PDiff=DDiff/Diff=15%(0.15)) and it reflects the greedy of miners sociaty .
Let average number of domain operations is NumOp=10 per block.
Let the block reward is Bounty=50 diacs (DIAnna Coin), and average sum of financial fees per block is SumFee = 0.1 diac.

Then acceptable price per domain operation would be:





We got acceptable price per domain operation = 0.7515 diac

Actually, PDiff is a self-regulated by sociaty value, I gave it only initial value. 15% overhead is good enough to run.

Besides, if this system will fly - it will conclude a practical degree of human greedy in percents (PDiff). Maybe first in history.

Well, I don't see a reason to change hashing algorithm right now, thus merged mining with bitcoin blockchain should be possible. I just hope you don't overengineer your system...

This all needs to be work at first. MM is the second question.

Huge farms work on particular hashing alghorithm. If I change hashing and/or interface, there will be a problem for huge farms.

pent, reconsider merged mining support. I feel like you don't see the huge benefit of merged mining - security of whole system. It's not about "free money" (as namecoin/dianna should NOT act as money). When you don't allow merged mining, your system will be very fragile to 51% attack, because there are huge mining farms (>100Ghash) owned by single persons. By supporting merged mining, you can count with wide support from existing bitcoin community, which will make your system secure on "military grade" since it's start...

Why would it be more attractive? If you and merge-mine 2 chains (BTC and NMC), you can merge-mine 5 or 10. I don't see the point.

I don't think Litecoin would be abandoned anytime before Bitcoin possibly was.  It gives all the Bitcoin miners an extra currency to mine for and the merged mining potential with that currency is currently untapped.

You're not the only one I heard this idea from btw. I hope you succeed