The same is the case with the desktop-based wallet. The least secure way to fix your Eternity wall Bitcoin in a instrumentality wallet. in the Blockchain Messages lasting forever Bitcointalk sign-to-contract - a bid to validate Sanpaolo has tested a Forever When It's Written concept over the past on the wall. Dec 17, · Bitcoin Discussion General discussion about the Bitcoin ecosystem that doesn't fit better elsewhere. News, the Bitcoin community, innovations, the general environment, etc. Discussion of specific Bitcoin-related services usually belongs in other sections. Though each Eternity wall Bitcoin transaction is recorded linear unit a private log, names of buyers and sellers are never revealed – only their notecase IDs. While that keeps bitcoin users’ transactions private, it also let's them buy or sell anything without easily tracing it back to them.
Bitcointalk eternityAll cryptocurrencies on algorithm X11
There are many questions still unclear about bitcoin. We have yet to see a lightweight client, freed of the block chain's burden. We still have to see how the TX fee market will develop. There is uncertainty about what the average number of transactions per minute would be in, say, two years. Distributed DNS using bitcoin concepts is really cool. Why not create a separate chain for it? Why force bitcoin users to support services they aren't aware of? And I don't need the payments stuff?
Timo Y. Quote from: forever on December 09, , AM. In the current implementation, the user is passing on the costs to the miner, and the miner is passing on the costs to the rest of the network. However, the user's transaction fee only compensates the miner's costs. I propose a law: "He who makes the chain, gets to decide what it looks like". Well I spport Satoshi completely in this matter. Leaving a possibility to store data in bitcoin chain is an accident waiting to happen.
Just wait until somebody encodes kiddie porn into the chain - it would stay there forever. And the governments would have a perfect propaganda possibility for fighting it. New transaction templates can be added as needed. Within a few days, there will be plenty of GPU power that accepts and works on it. Network support will be thorough long before there'll be enough clients who understand how to receive and interpret the new transaction. Timestamp hashes are still already possible: txin: 0.
I like Hal Finney's idea for user-friendly timestamping. Convert the hash of a file to a bitcoin address and send 0. I thought of a simple way to implement the timestamp concept I mentioned above. Run sha1sum on the file you want to timestamp. Then send a small payment to that address. And their spec is so much further developed. This is excellent! I will look through it in detail tomorrow as I've already spent way too much time on this today. My concern is that there would be a rush to grab hot domains.
I would expect that the first blocks generated with this system will all be maximum size and filled with the equivalent of sex. These domain names are worth millions of dollars, if the system succeeds. I suppose transaction fees would be enormous, otherwise miners will just fill blocks with their own registrations. Ordinary transactions would be crowded out, if this were part of Bitcoin.
Quote from: Hal on December 07, , PM. Do we have a consensus on nanotube's proposal? Any objection? Quote from: kiba on December 07, , PM. Some sort of expiration is required, preferably a short one the 52, blocks used currently in this spec is probably too big. Having a short expiration requires everyone to rebroadcast their messages, which solves two problems at once: - With an expiration of x , you can build a complete DNS database by downloading only the most recent x blocks.
Having an unlimited expiration would require you to download the entire block chain, which will eventually become several terabytes in size. The value of y is currently unknown, but I expect it to be between 5, and 52, Messages need to be rebroadcast at least this frequently to stay alive if you want to use the convenient one-coin-per-domain system.
Quote from: em3rgentOrdr on December 07, , PM. I read your draft bitcoin DNS spec Nanotube and theymous And it's fascinating that ribuck also came up with a very similar design independently. Then the only alternative is to go forward with a parallel but independent block chain, creating a second currency. Are we ok with that? In the doc, this appears like a Bitcoin transaction fee.
The first example shows But tx fees go to miners. Is it assumed that miners are the same as DNS servers? Or would there be a 2nd output, a fee to a particular DNS server to get it to register you, in addition to a tx fee to the miner? Are you allowing name changes of the main part of the domain? Like elephantfood. Or is this disallowed, in which case, exactly which kinds of name changes are allowed? Would anyone who wants be able to run one of these special DNS servers, or do you envision there being relatively few of these?
Thanks -. This is exciting stuff. The benefits of having an intrinsic value to bitcoin is inestimable and kills a lot of arguments against it. I would like to hear satoshi's thoughts on this as forking the network is not a decision taken lightly.
Is there a way to reserve the top domains at Alexa? I can see massive issues down the road if say google has their name squatted on. Doing this would bring a lot of goodwill towards bitcoin rather than having all the top companies against it. When a top company wishes to claim their name the profits could go to benefit bitcoin. Is that a good plan? Quote from: Anonymous on December 08, , AM. Quote from: da2ce7 on December 08, , AM. Maybe we could have a 'time-lock' of about a week or so where you claim a domain, and if half of the network decides that that domain should be in the trust they can deny that request.
Once the network is more established the minimum time-lock can be reduced. Quote from: kiba on December 08, , AM. I guess I'm missing the point of the fee other than as a way to provide an incentive for miners, and to put a little pain on the registrants involved here. I think reserving the top alexa domains by seeding the genesis block with those "registrations" would be an excellent show of good faith towards the world at large. So in theory this is the perfect system for claiming a 'named address'.
If I wanted to send a payment to 'theymos. Or is my understanding wrong? This is all very fascinating stuff. While I think I grasp the fundamental differences between them, I am not confident to weigh in.
Could I ask that someone more knowledgeable than I am on these matters create a table wiki? As Kiba pointed out, I am most excited for bitcoin to have it's intrinsic "use-value! Lastly, and this could be due to my lack of intimate knowledge of DNS, but will this work seamlessly with more secure DNS protocols as well? Also, is this designed to ultimately replace existing registrars or will this always be a "DomainShadow" system that is only used in the event of crisis like wikileaks attack, etc?
Overall, great work guys!!! Quote from: chaord on December 08, , AM. Quote from: theymos on December 08, , AM. And if you run your own server, you don't need to trust anyone! I can't see any of this becoming mainstream any time soon.
You have to at least change your nameservers, and to get all of the security benefits you have to run a bunch of extra software all the time.
It should scale well, though, if it did go mainstream. Quote from: nanotube on December 08, , AM. Yes, coding need to be done soon. Repeating ad nauseum: Speed is of the essence. BitDns is not bitcoin. We already have a forked chain Get something working on the test network and prove your theories. Other proposals envisioned a single new TLD like. Names can be changed when registered, but only from one TLD to another. You could change pics. I don't understand the motivation for this.
It seems like something that would seldom be useful. I'm still confused about fees. I was assuming that fees would be paid to the DNS servers, for the service of acting as a gateway from the Bitcoin block chain to the DNS system.
I now see another interpretation, where DNS servers don't receive the fees, but they nevertheless demand that transaction fees of a certain minimum level be paid to miners. As long as they see that the domain name was registered with a large enough transaction fee to the miner, they will pass it through to the DNS.
Is it possible that this is what was intended? The proposal seems to envision a relatively small set of DNS servers that would be authorities for these new domain names and be the ones who bring the names from the block chain into DNS.
These would be somewhat analogous to registrars today. I may be misunderstanding this! Each of these DNS servers publishes a schedule of fees for performing this service. To register a new name I had thought it would be ok to expect DNS servers to follow the block chain and honor valid domain name transactions without requiring certain minimum fees.
Eventually, if the system is successful, virtually all DNS servers would read the block chain. The left-most part has to stay the same. Everything but the left-most part is advisory: "theymos.
In particular, if someone registers a top-level domain such as "theymos. Quote from: ribuck on December 08, , PM. We really don't want the DomainChain system saying that it will "protect" names but "refuse to protect" all the rest.
I suggest that we exclude all existing top level domains from DomainChain registration. So no-one will be able to register google. They could, however, register google.
Quote from: kiba on December 08, , PM. It could set some precedent for protocol change that allow people to shut down certain domains. I suspect most of the domain names will be grabbed by speculators who will ransom it to large corporations. Search engines would ignore domain names that violate certain standard of a business mark.
Who would be given the "authority" to remove domain names? That implies central authority of some sort that has control over this network. Domain squatting has a time honored and long tradition anyway and isn't going to change with how we are going to be running this system. By setting up a system to "delist" a domain name, it also sets up the person or group of people with presumably some private key which can in turn authorize the removal of domains as a target for receiving judicial injunctions and potentially other sorts of legal problems.
If instead you can demonstrate that it is cryptographically impossible to change the domain registration information, all you can do is throw your handseddrli up and say "I can't change that, sorry".
The owner of the IP address referenced by the domain registration should be the target of attack, not the domain registration system. Then I'm confused about how else you would set up a system to arbitrarily remove a domain record from the DNS network? If you got an idea on how to implement that, I'm interested. The only system I can think of is to arbitrarily assign authority to "somebody" to take care of that issue.
You could have a "voting" system perhaps that would count up requests to eliminate a domain from a majority of the network and therefore "by consensus" drop the domain. It would also provide an unneeded attack vector on the network as well as the "votes" would also be subject to some kind of manipulation that perhaps would be even worse than a trusted authority figure.
My design stores the domain name plus a couple of nameserver IP addresses say, 50 bytes for an everlasting registration. There's talk of the renewals being required perhaps as frequently as every blocks, and certainly no more than every blocks.
I'm starting to think that an everlasting registration really is the way to go. In the DomainChain design, the registration would not be affected by block chain compaction, since compaction only affects spent transactions. If you transfer a DomainChain registration, or modify its name servers, all of the necessary information is contained in the latest transaction, which will remain unspent until the registration is deliberately modified.
I think users will be uneasy about having to renew every or even blocks. Having to remember to renew, in order to avoid losing your registration, is bad enough. But block generation rates are variable, so that you won't even know for sure when your renewal falls due. Unpredictable renewals are not something that would make me feel good about using such a system for my domain name registrations. I can see many accidental domain name losses occurring under this system.
Obviously there needs to be a business case made that non-expiring domain names will work. To get in one of these, you'll have to pay them directly in addition to the fees that go to whoever generates the block. This can be done with additional outputs, or you can pay on their site in the traditional Bitcoin way. This is where a registrar is especially useful, since they will know all of the current fee requirements of the various servers, and they can pay them all at once automatically.
People who run their own servers will not get a fee like this, but will rely only on the block fee. Configure your server to require the fee that you think is best, and you will see only those domains that have paid that fee or above. I think we should dispense with the complexity associated with paying various servers. We should also dispense with the concept of paying more if we want better visibility for our domain names.
No-one wants a system where some people can reach some. Or a system where a new server can come to prominence and put pressure on people to pay again for the domains they already paid for. Let's cut it down to the simplest business model that can work. Suppose there are some generators who will include domain name registrations into blocks that they generate, because they want to earn the transaction fees. Those generators will operate public-facing domain name servers. They need to do this, to make the domain name service credible so that people will use DomainChain for their domain registrations.
For the generators, it's an overhead, but a necessary one. Kind of like how most restaurants provide toilets without charging separately for them. You could argue that there will also be some operators who would generate, and who would collect the transaction fees for domain name registrations, but who would not operate a server. After all, why incur the overhead if the other generators will operate the servers? But the market will take care of this.
The generators who do operate servers are not going to accept the blocks generated by those who sell domain names without providing domain name servers.
Additionally, a market like this is likely to have two other kinds of players. There will be a few organizations who are willing to operate a server for free, perhaps for ideological reasons. Those servers will probably be overloaded and slow like the free Usenet servers , but they act as a backstop which forces the commercial operators to provide something better. There will also be a few commercial operators who provide enhanced super-fast servers without being generators.
They will do this either because they have paying customers who want the best domain name service that is possible, or they will do it for their own business reasons as Google does with their free-to-access domain name servers. Here are the advantages of this simpler system: For the domain name owner, the registration is convenient, secure, and lasts forever, For the internet user, the same set of domains is served to everyone, For the generators, it's a worthwhile extra source of income, and For the Bitcoin system, it's an easy way to get extra strength into the block chain with minimal extra data.
I agree with ribuck that DNS servers don't necessarily need to get paid, to support Bitcoin domains. After all, what is the purpose of a DNS server? It is to lookup domains for its clients, which are users wanting to connect to computers using domain names. All that is necessary is to track the block chain and maintain indexes and hash tables to record which domains are in effect and their basic DNS data. DNS servers don't have to be Bitcoin miners. The existing motivations for DNS servers to operate and provide lookup serves to their clients will be sufficient to make them track Bitcoin domains.
Quote from: Hal on December 08, , AM. It appears this can support several top level domains, such as. Each "TLD" would have its own central server where you would have to "pay" to get onto that server? Any additional fees being thrown with the "registration" is not going to anybody actually putting effort in terms of running the domain server or doing registrations. You have forgotten the rule that I asserted earlier in the thread: Quote.
Asking as a general question, is the whole concept of throwing the data into transactions a dead issue now? With the release of Bitcoin v. Miners who aren't using a codebase derived from the reference implementation still may add blocks to the network involving these "goofy" transaction packets, but by design the reference implementation will not recognize the transactions. If we work around the IsStandard algorithm, it is only going to change to stop whatever changes we make.
This is a subtle but interesting issue where essentially the only way we can guarantee that a domain transaction can be put into a block chain is to create a custom miner and compete for blocks to put those transactions into the network. That makes for some interesting problems in terms of latency for an effort like DomainCoin.
Should we move onto the forked version of Bitcoin to implement this idea again? Quote from: kiba on December 09, , AM. Quote from: theymos on December 08, , PM. Others elsewhere or previously have suggested we build a chain dependent on the bitcoin chain.
Some way to hash the data against a block. That way, miners would still be strengthening the bitcoin network. Hey guys. I'm really surprised that my post received so much attention! However, I urge you to re-read my initial post, as I feel that original formulation of the idea solves many of the problems you are currently discussing, including the 1 business-plan problem and 2 the bitcoin integration problem. There is also a third problem which hasn't been brought up by anyone thus far, which is 3 the problem of dividing the CPU pool among multiple block chains.
In the original formulation, bitDNS is simply an example of a possible generalization of bitcoin. It should be possible to dream up many such applications requiring block chains for systems that need some kind of quorum. We should be discussing BitX , the general block chain that in the future will support both bitcoin and bitDNS. It neatly solves 1 and 2 , as well as the biggest problem in my view, the CPU pool division problem.
BitX is essentially an uber-chain which has hashes of app bitcoin, bitDNS, This way a bitDNS server will only need to download its own app payload without worrying about bitcoin's payload and vice-versa. As the number of bit-apps increase, this problem of smushing them all into bitcoin will only get worse, and 2 becomes a big problem that has to be solved for each app.
BitX neatly deals with applications liberally, leaving it completely up to them to decide their own protocols but forming a valuable backbone for them. With bitcoin and bitDNS as separate apps running on BitX, 1 is easily solved with third-party escrows. Escrowing is a big problem, and perhaps unsolveable, with respect to bitcoin and USD or PPUSD transactions, but it is incredibly reliable when executed between two bitapps.
A trusted escrow can receive both transactions, verify them mechanically and automatically release the assets when both transactions are properly verified. Note that this also frees bitDNS from bitcoin baggage when bitMoney overtakes bitcoin as the most popular bit-currency. I believe in fact that bitcoin in its present form will necessarily be overtaken due to problem 3. The big deal: the CPU pool division problem.
CPU division will occur when bitcoin can't or won't support bit-application bitFoo. This may occur with bitDNS, or it may occur later, but I think it will occur at some point.
Every miner for bitFoo will be one less miner for bitcoin and vice-versa. Both of these systems will be twice as susceptible to attack if they have roughly equal CPU pools , and the problem multiplies as the number of bit-apps and their block chains increases. BitX cleanly solves this by having every bit-app generate on the same block chain, the BitX chain.
They weave their own block chains within the uber-chain, and unwittingly protect eachother from attack. It also greatly speeds adoption of any given bit-app; the BitX miners are already generating bitcoins, so why not generate bitDNS names as well? There is no cost to the miner, and who knows, this new-fangled bitDNS thing might actually take off someday?
Even if the demerits of separate block chains can be mitigated, the merits of a unified chain cannot be overstated in my view. There isn't any reason to call it domainchain if it is built upon BitX in any case, because the name registration aspect will be an implementation on top of the BitX chain rather than a full implementation with its own chain.
I'm looking forward to some bit fun! Thanks guys! Quote from: creighto on December 09, , AM. So what would prevent me from registering the domain jackass.
How are the miners going to get these transactions? I don't think the transactions are even being broadcast from one node to the next if they fail to meet the IsStandard algorithm, but rather they must be put in directly by a miner. Quote from: appamatto on December 09, , AM. I believe the problem with the generalized BitX is that the more that one adds to the chain, the higher the payload and overhead.
Quote from: da2ce7 on December 09, , AM. Ok its time to stop talking and do something. Create another genesis block for domaincoins. Bitcoin will be a pure financial vehicle from this point forward. As such it should be as lean as possible. Problem solved. To provide the initial security to the network it needs a few miners with gpu cards. Whos in? Quote from: Anonymous on December 09, , AM. I still hear talking.
Basically, there will always be imposters who try to claim the domain name of your brand or some misspelling. So I'm almost wondering if the whole concept of domain names is fundamentally flawed to begin with. And it seems there is always has to be some sort of centralized means of allocating domain names. I'm looking into some system called Pet Names I will start another thread for this, and provide a link here Anyway, I think NoAgenda is right here that the Bitcoin block chain, from now on, should be a pure financial vehicle, considering that the latest bitcoin version update removes the ability to include extra text in transactions: Quote from: Anonymous on December 09, , AM.
Quote from: em3rgentOrdr on December 09, , PM. Quote from: ribuck on December 09, , PM. The way for a small group to achieve success is to design a drop-in-replacement that's significantly better in one important way. 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. 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.
Kiba, I wrote this response before Satoshi posted above. I'll need some time to understand Satoshi's post. BeeNode excludes situations when any decision is postponed or not made due to the fact that the responsibilities are not distributed. We are absolutely sure that this approach is the only correct one in the dynamically developing market, which requires the project to make informed decisions at lightning speed.
The project BeeNode, as well as the entire ecosystem of coins, performs an important mission for the global community, developing and promoting cryptocurrencies, therefore, the emphasis in our work we do on the product and not on their personalities. Our successes and the tremendous work done speak for us. Total coins. Network Hashrate. Cryptocoin BeeNode Beenode financial model. Specification BeeNode Blockchain Explorer. Official ANN thread. More Features Beenode is not just a coin, it is an ecosystem created for the convenience of users.
Easy to Use Additional services allow you to turn the use Beenode in an easy and pleasant task. Best Solution Beenode ecosystem is the best place for your investment. Fast Support The unique principle of the reward allows you to support and develop the project.
Goal setting BeeNode is not just a coin that wants to compete with fiat money or bitcoin for a start, we strive for another: to create and develop our own ecosystem with the widest functionality: from investment to the trading platform and payment processing. The main tool for beenode users is wallet. Windows wallet. Linux wallet.