j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMí<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28710#msg28710">Quote from: Anonymous on December 09, 2010, 10:23:37 PM</a></div><div class="quote">So if its possible to have a separate block chain and share the cpu power it seems like the issue is solved. Dont go pushing non financial transactions into one central block chain but let each application be a separate entity. If there are many different block chains it increases the chance of earning a block doesnt it? <br/><br/>Its a simple elegant solution from satoshi. <br/><br/><br/></div><br/>While I like the idea in general, it doesn't really solve the problem in terms of parallel currencies. I don't think the idea of where the CPU power was going to come from for powering this network was ever an issue. People who got into mining would go wherever the money was at and find solutions to "earn" whatever coins happen to be around.<br/><br/>I do like the idea of pooling Bitcoin-like block chains in terms of attempting to "earn" hashes, and if there were more ways use CPU power to generate hashes it can only be beneficial to everybody involved.<br/><br/>I still would like to use miners for "authentication" of the DomainCoin registrations in some way and I'm trying to come up with a good system to get that done. By authentication I'm referring to basic "rules" that can verify that a domain hasn't been claimed, and a "miner" who doesn't follow those rules as accepted by the rest of the network gets that block rejected. That is happening right now with Bitcion in regards to transactions, but doesn't happen with any other data and won't happen with other data at least as it is presented.<br/><br/>It still gets to the issue I presented earlier on another thread:<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2129.msg28195#msg28195">Quote from: RHorning on December 08, 2010, 07:11:04 PM</a></div><div class="quote"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2129.msg27889#msg27889">Quote from: caveden on December 07, 2010, 10:21:41 PM</a></div><div class="quote">I agree with jgarzik, the chain should not be used as storage.<br/><br/>If you want to create your own proof-of-work chain but would like to avoid double-work, you could make your parallel chain "dependent" on the bitcoin chain. Like, for creating a block in a dependent chain, you first have to create a block on the bitcoin chain and then use the private key you used to create that block to sign your new block on the dependent chain.<br/></div><br/>I think I've asked this question a number of times getting the run around. Perhaps I'll be more clear with this example as proposed by Caveden:<br/><br/>If you create this alternate "proof of work" chain (presumably to keep this junk out of the main Bitcoin financial traffic), how can you get those who are performing this work to be paid in Bitcions, based upon some fee system agreed to by the network running that proof of work chain?<br/><br/>If simply running that network is its own reward, it doesn't matter, but if there is going to be a fee involved for adding information into that proof of work chain, I don't see how that can be done without actually putting those block into the main Bitcoin chain, or setting up a completely parallel currency to Bitcoins.<br/></div><br/>This is an intractable problem if you want to include the data itself in an authenticated form in a chain block and have that chain block directly connected to Bitcoin without a parallel currency. Theymos simply ignores the issue entirely with his protocol.... which is fine as far as that goes but a miner isn't really being paid to process domain registrations and certainly isn't authenticating bad registrations. The real "work" in terms of a DNS system is to authenticate precisely who "owns" the domain and make sure that somebody else can't claim that domain. The Theymos/Nanotube protocol forces authentication into a free good, and puts potential attacks on the protocol into the hands of the Bitcoin network... where I don't think it belongs either.<br/><br/>I firmly believe that the data for domains must be in an authenticated system, preferably its own independent chain (perhaps linked to Bitcoin), where all of those serving this data can agree upon the same information and there is no ambiguity about the data. Previous proposals that shove the data into the transactions of Bitcoins fail to get that accomplished.</div> text/html
https://whatsonchain.com/tx/045552faec178cbff48d031585d50431e82af6c0d773fc4e58c843dbf2161ab3