The economics of generalized bitcoin - page 2.

Judson

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Quote from: kiba on December 09, 2010, 12:13:26 PM

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 12:10:55 PM

Because there are 200 million domain names that use the other service and have no reason to "mine" for domains when they can just buy one. You can't be suggesting that even if BitDNS was integrated, it would be more than a niche.

Nonsense, most people will still buy domain names.

Haha, then why even worry about getting it into the main client as a transaction type?

kiba

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1014

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 12:10:55 PM

Because there are 200 million domain names that use the other service and have no reason to "mine" for domains when they can just buy one. You can't be suggesting that even if BitDNS was integrated, it would be more than a niche.

Nonsense, most people will still buy domain names.

Judson

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Quote from: ribuck on December 09, 2010, 11:40:54 AM

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 11:27:17 AM

Heck, the guy from The Pirate Bay is making his own distributed DNS.

It's important to understand a distinction here. They are making a distributed Domain Name Service, but are planning to depend on a centralized Domain Name Registration Service.

Bitcoin provides a great way to do a decentralized Domain Name Registration Service which would be a great match for their distributed DNS.

Didn't realize that they weren't doing distributed registration. And bitdns only does Domain Name Registration?

Quote from: kiba on December 09, 2010, 11:34:05 AM

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 11:27:17 AM

The truth, probably, is that bitdns will never be anything big.

And why do you think that is?

Quote

Heck, the guy from The Pirate Bay is making his own distributed DNS.

I started the bounty pledge drive precisely because I didn't like what the The Pirate Bay is doing.

Because there are 200 million domain names that use the other service and have no reason to "mine" for domains when they can just buy one. You can't be suggesting that even if BitDNS was integrated, it would be more than a niche.

Gavin Andresen

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 2300

Chief Scientist

Quote from: appamatto on December 09, 2010, 11:50:36 AM

Conceptually you have a single BitX chain with several bit-app chains weaving in and out of it. Generating a BitX block will then allow you to generate a bitcoin block, a bitDNS block, a bit-foo block, etc.

...

The BitX chain is straight-forward although a key observation here is that BitX blocks should never be rejected for bit-app reasons, i.e. a client should be able to accept/reject a BitX block without ever downloading app blocks

Quick reaction: what stops malicious or lazy BitX chain generator from implementing a type of denial-of-service attack against some bit-app they either don't like or don't know about? If BitX blocks are never rejected for bit-app reasons, then what is the incentive for main-BitX chain generators to include only (or any!) valid bit-app hashes? What stops me from constantly flooding the BitX network with bogus bit-app hashes and asking them to be included in BitX blocks?

appamatto

jr. member

Activity: 36

Merit: 13

Quote from: nanotube on December 09, 2010, 12:46:41 AM

Quote from: appamatto on December 08, 2010, 10:38:14 PM

Thanks for the backup. :p

Yes, I think that the different bit-apps should be as orthogonal as possible, both to each other and to the "uber-chain" of BitX.

Honestly, bitcoin may not be the killer app for the block chain platform. If this is the case then we run the risk of a more popular app leaving bitcoin in the dust, and then having someone incorporate a currency platform into that app, thereby dwarfing the bitcoin block history and popping the bubble.

That's why I think it's essential to "bind the fates" of the various bit-apps together in a single BitX "uber-chain" that can provide mutual protection for bit-apps like bitDNS and bitcoin as well as easily foster new apps.

you seem to be suggesting that somehow there would be a general "bitx" chain, which all the different apps use, and thus there's no fragmentation of cpu power. sounds theoretically nifty... but how would you achieve that? the point of bitcoin is that it makes it expensive, and verifiable, to insert data into the chain. if you have a separate chain that doesn't actually have any data in it... then how do you tie the 'apps' into it? it seems that you have not offered even an inkling of an approach that would make it possible? or am i wrong and i missed something in the upstream post?

This was touched upon in the original mega-thread for BitX, but it's worth restating here simply.

Basically a BitX block looks something like this:

... and so on for each bit-app ...

Notice that no app-data is present in the actual BitX block. The app blocks are separate although probably are distributed in the same way as the BitX blocks.

So I need to answer for you: where are the multiple chains, and how are blocks in each accepted/refuted?

The BitX chain is straight-forward although a key observation here is that BitX blocks should never be rejected for bit-app reasons, i.e. a client should be able to accept/reject a BitX block without ever downloading app blocks. This is how bitcoin for example operates without ever needing to know about bitDNS data, other than a couple hundred bytes of metadata. BitX blocks can be rejected only if they have a bad timestamp, fail to meet difficulty criteria or have some other formatting problem. Oh, and there is an additional restriction that only one new app be created per block, to prevent spam in the chain.

The bit-app chains aren't really the domain of concern for BitX. BitX simply provides three fields that can be used by apps to do bit-app-like things. The (current) suggestion is that the bit-foo backlink be a hash of the BitX block which contains the head of the last valid bit-foo app chain. An alternative is for this field to simply be an integer which is the offset in the chain from the current BitX block, indicating the same thing. In any case this allows bit-apps to form their own linked lists with their own accept/reject rules. Rejection for a bit-foo means pointing further back in the BitX chain to the last sane bit-foo entry. Rejection for a bit-app does not entail rejecting the current BitX head itself.

Conceptually you have a single BitX chain with several bit-app chains weaving in and out of it. Generating a BitX block will then allow you to generate a bitcoin block, a bitDNS block, a bit-foo block, etc.

That's the protocol. In terms of the likely market behavior of this system, I think the most powerful incentive is toward participation in meaningful bit-apps; It costs almost nothing to generate bitDNS names while you are generating bitcoin, with a large possible payoff. The earlier you are in adopting new bit-apps, the more you stand to gain as a miner.

The principle behind BitX is to provide the smallest possible block chain kernel to support decentralized but mutually-beneficial bit-app development. This, in my opinion, is the only way to ensure success given that none of us may have already thought of the killer bit-app yet; it may be neither bitDNS nor bitcoin.

ribuck

donator

Activity: 826

Merit: 1060

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 11:27:17 AM

Heck, the guy from The Pirate Bay is making his own distributed DNS.

It's important to understand a distinction here. They are making a distributed Domain Name Service, but are planning to depend on a centralized Domain Name Registration Service.

Bitcoin provides a great way to do a decentralized Domain Name Registration Service which would be a great match for their distributed DNS.

kiba

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1014

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 11:27:17 AM

The truth, probably, is that bitdns will never be anything big.

And why do you think that is?

Quote

Heck, the guy from The Pirate Bay is making his own distributed DNS.

I started the bounty pledge drive precisely because I didn't like what the The Pirate Bay is doing.

Judson

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Everyone is stuck on a hypothetical I gave out, with the point being that, IMO, bitcoin would need to be free from any uses that might discourage its uses, otherwise, the average user may not use it.

I think jgarzik says it best.

Quote from: jgarzik on December 09, 2010, 04:38:27 AM

...unless the use of bitcoin for non-currency purposes discourages currency use. Some uses of the network can act as an overall disincentive against mainstream use. If people see that miners care little for currency transactions on the bitcoin network, or all the data spam increases TX fees to annoying levels, currency users will find a new network elsewhere. If people find out law-enforcement-objectionable data such as "kiddie-pr0n.p2p DNS data" is being managed on this network, that increases the incentive for currency users to go elsewhere.

Maybe that makes some miners happy in the short term, and you happy, but I'm here for the revolutionary new type of digital cash.

And this generalized data timestamping/notary service seems like it has the distinct probability of degrading service for digital cash, if it is even remotely successful.

The truth, probably, is that bitdns will never be anything big. Heck, the guy from The Pirate Bay is making his own distributed DNS. The main client shouldn't have a transaction type specifically for DNS.

Timo Y

legendary

Activity: 938

Merit: 1001

bitcoin - the aerogel of money

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 12:14:52 AM

Not to mention that a decentralized DNS system, which I am not against, will have a tendency to skew towards the illegal/fringe uses where avoidance of the law is paramount.

Serious criminals already operate mostly in darknets, not on the public web. The DNS is of no importance to them.

da2ce7

legendary

Activity: 1222

Merit: 1016

Live and Let Live

The problem is that when I make a transaction, I announce: Please include this data, and I'll pay you this much for the service.

As a generator I don't care what the data is, providing it is paid for.

If somebody wants to put junk data into the chain, fine, but they should pay for it. I don't care if it is currency data, or BitDns data, or whatever. Obviously _somebody_ cares about it enough to pay me to include it.

In essence, if the generators accept coins for including other data, they are both supporting the bitcoin economy, and strengthening bitcoin from attack.

The reality is reality the network always will be run from the whims of the generators, this is by design. There is no way to stop it. The generators (as a group) have the power.

jgarzik

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1099

Another point is that BitDNS is essentially an autonomous entity that runs a paid service in a niche market (decentralized, timestamped, notarized data storage). As such, it seems fundamentally unfair to integrate one service directly into the currency itself, while all other services ("the rest of the world") simply uses the currency itself. BitDNS becomes a "blessed" provider, elevated above other websites, stores and services due to its direct integration into the currency transactions themselves.

This is certainly uncharted territory when it comes to currencies, but I would not like to speculate on how this changes the economics of bitcoin's value.

Succeed or fail, bitcoin-the-currency should stand on its own.

kiba

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1014

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 01:36:36 AM

Then do we disagree?

Bad communication exacerbated by my brain not processing right(sleep deprived).

Quote

You are against the protocol being filled with "other uses" (like BitDNS - an exception to normal use). If the official client only allows standard transactions, then the protocol is not getting "minced".

"Minced" is allowing humans to do whatever they want, instead of adhering to strict procedure defined by software code. In other words, introduction unpredictable, and eventually a lack of respect for the rule of law. "Let censor this shit because I don't like it" that kind of thing.That is what I mean here. Unfortunately, my brain thought process wasn't translated accurately in the writing.

Judson

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Then do we disagree?

You are against the protocol being filled with "other uses" (like BitDNS - an exception to normal use). If the official client only allows standard transactions, then the protocol is not getting "minced".

I feel like BitDNS stuff like this is just a phase. It won't last long, and will eventually be forgotten by the discovery of a new way to mine Bitcoins faster with the same hardware (or applicable "next big thing").

kiba

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1014

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 01:08:31 AM

That having a domain name would help a hypothetical illicit online business?

That Bitcoin being interwoven with said illicit hypothetical online business by virtue of being its DNS provider is a bad thing?

Define an "illict" business.

Look, all I am saying that if somebody is doing something bad, it would better if we know about it, rather than remaining underground.

If he protocol will not get minced by "exceptions"...well all know how well that road turn out.[edit]

Judson

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Then what point that I have mentioned are you against?

That having a domain name would help a hypothetical illicit online business?

That Bitcoin being interwoven with said illicit hypothetical online business by virtue of being its DNS provider is a bad thing?

kiba

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1014

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 01:00:27 AM

Why would the Bitcoin community want to have a distributed DNS system piggybacked on its chain? Yea, you could do that with the old client releases, but the new official client release does not support BitDNS/DomainChain. (I am upgrading, and won't support BitDNS/DomainChain).

Who say that I actually support BitDNS/DomainChain piggyback on the bitcoin chain?

Judson

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Kiba, maybe I'm not being clear or something?

Bitcoin is a currency.

People spend it. Use it as an investment. And in the future, it could be a rival to the currencies of some countries.

Why would the Bitcoin community want to have a distributed DNS system piggybacked on its chain? Yea, you could do that with the old client releases, but the new official client release does not support BitDNS/DomainChain. (I am upgrading, and won't support BitDNS/DomainChain).

If someone ***really*** wants a distributed dns chain, make your own chain!

nanotube

hero member

Activity: 482

Merit: 501

Quote from: appamatto on December 08, 2010, 10:38:14 PM

Thanks for the backup. :p

Yes, I think that the different bit-apps should be as orthogonal as possible, both to each other and to the "uber-chain" of BitX.

Honestly, bitcoin may not be the killer app for the block chain platform. If this is the case then we run the risk of a more popular app leaving bitcoin in the dust, and then having someone incorporate a currency platform into that app, thereby dwarfing the bitcoin block history and popping the bubble.

That's why I think it's essential to "bind the fates" of the various bit-apps together in a single BitX "uber-chain" that can provide mutual protection for bit-apps like bitDNS and bitcoin as well as easily foster new apps.

you seem to be suggesting that somehow there would be a general "bitx" chain, which all the different apps use, and thus there's no fragmentation of cpu power. sounds theoretically nifty... but how would you achieve that? the point of bitcoin is that it makes it expensive, and verifiable, to insert data into the chain. if you have a separate chain that doesn't actually have any data in it... then how do you tie the 'apps' into it? it seems that you have not offered even an inkling of an approach that would make it possible? or am i wrong and i missed something in the upstream post?

kiba

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1014

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 12:32:19 AM

Im aware that saying "its against the protocol" disallows anyone from taking a domain, but that is the point. Why would Bitcoin want to be a part of a DNS system anyway?

That's a rather strange conception. DomainChain/BitDNS are available to anybody who wishes to use it.

kiba

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1014

Quote from: Judson on December 09, 2010, 12:32:19 AM

1) I understand that taking a domain name doesn't shut down the operation, but having a domain name at least makes it easier for the content to be accessed, and easier for it to be profitable for the wrongdoer, who can change hosts, etc, and just update the IP behind the domain.

It also make them easier to track down. The authorities would ban/censor such site instead of actually solving problems.

Topic: The economics of generalized bitcoin - page 2. (Read 8101 times)