We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.
From the "Bitcoin p2p e-
cash paper":
i'm glad everyone's been talking about Satoshi recently. that stimulated me to go back thru his whitepaper to see if there were any references to any of the speculative SC's functions that are being proposed by the SC proponents in this thread and elsewhere. those being listed below. they claim that SC's are a "natural and logical extension" to Bitcoin and that if Satoshi was able to be asked, he would love SC's. well, i see no indication that this wild claim is valid. see that none of these speculative assets were ever mentioned:
0 asset
0 stocks
0 bonds
0 insurance
0 smart
0 contracts
0 sidechain
0 offchain
0 separate
2 gold
5 money
it's clear to me that Satoshi intended for Bitcoin to be a new form of digital money, or currency if you will, that mimicked gold in all respects and improved upon it. i'm only aware of one isolated forum post where he mentioned the addition of smart contracts, etc but that was in the context of adding them to the MC protocol. never was there any mention of SC's nor the quack idea of separating the BTC units from the blockchain. and understandably so. by breaking the inextricable link btwn the two, you break security and therefore break Bitcoin as Money. this is so obvious. the last 200 pages have clearly demonstrated a myriad of ways things can go wrong with the SC proponents morphing their vision of how SC's will play out to satisfy any specific concern while promising us the moon.
Bitcoin should continue to focus on what got us to where we are: the Money function. that is where the problem lies today in the world of fiat and central banks. this is what i saw back in January of 2011, Bitcoin as a poison dart aimed at the heart of central banks. the problem is not stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts. those all function reasonably well. the problems we've had with them in the past, such as in 2001 and 2008, were fiat printing enabled and backed by central banks. w/o the ability to print at will to bail out bad actors, Bitcoin as Money seeks to clamp down and eliminate this moral hazard. and the network of money is ripe to be disrupted. and rightfully so. THAT is where the money is. the Forex is the biggest in the world as i've shown. the gold market is huge as well. if Bitcoin can crack those markets we will go to the Moon. Bitcoin should stay simple and non complex. it has evolved to that of a public good. no one should be allowed to corrupt its primary function of money. let alone profit off it.
leave the source code alone.
seems that the miner would have to basically do "extra work". and if there's no reward from the bitdns mining from the extra work (which of course, slows down the main bitcoin work), what would be a miner's incentive to include bitdns (and whatever other side chains) ?
The incentive is to get the rewards from the extra
side chains also for the same work.
While you are generating bitcoins, why not also get free domain names for the
same work?
If you currently generate 50 BTC per week, now you could get 50 BTC and some domain names too.
You have one piece of work. If you solve it, it will solve a block from both Bitcoin and BitDNS. In concept, they're tied together by a Merkle Tree. To hand it in to Bitcoin, you break off the BitDNS branch, and to hand it in to BitDNS, you break off the Bitcoin branch.
In practice, to retrofit it for Bitcoin, the BitDNS side would have to have maybe ~200 extra bytes, but that's not a big deal. You've been talking about 50 domains per block, which would dwarf that little 200 bytes per block for backward compatibility. We could potentially schedule a far in future block when Bitcoin would upgrade to a modernised arrangement with the Merkle Tree on top, if we care enough about saving a few bytes.
Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree. That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks.
This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain. This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain.
I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.
The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.
I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.
Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.
