Transaction

j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckM» <div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27442#msg27442">Quote from: chaord on December 06, 2010, 07:28:40 PM</a></div><div class="quote">+1 on DomainChain or BitRegister over BitDNS (no offense kiba <img alt="Wink" border="0" src="/static/img/emoticons/wink.gif"/> )<br/></div><br/>Ooooooo... &nbsp;I like BitRegister. &nbsp;DomainChain works out pretty good too and is very descriptive. &nbsp;I'm so used to BitDNS that I am still somewhat partial to that, but it doesn't exactly explain in a single word what this is going to be other than a shortened form of "Bitcoin DNS".<br/><br/>I'd like to get back to the topic of the scope of the domain naming system itself. &nbsp;I would like to propose the following specification for actual name of the domain itself:<br/><br/>A domain can include combination of unicode (UTF8) characters with the exception of the period character (U+002E). &nbsp;We may want to look at some other restricted characters mainly for conformance with normal URL schema as defined in RFCs and avoiding control codes, but I say that right off the start we permit non-latin characters into this scheme. &nbsp;Other "excluded" characters may include the "/" character (U+002F) or the other non-alphabetic characters common found in the original ASCII specification. &nbsp;The period character here is something more special, however.<br/><br/>Some possible domain names would be "excluded" from this schema and held in common such as excluding domains named "com", "net", "edu", or any of the standard country codes as currently under the purview of ICANN. &nbsp;If ICANN wants to get into this game and claim those few domains, I don't mind giving these domains directly to ICANN, but the issue here is mainly to avoid naming collisions with other network resources. &nbsp;If/when that becomes an issue, a technical solution can be found and it is irrelevant.<br/><br/>"Sub-domains" can also be established using a "dot" structure off of a previously established domain name. &nbsp;For example a certain oil company could create a domain called "bp" and then create a sub-domain like "usa.bp". &nbsp;When a registration of this nature happens, some sort of signed public/private hash key confirming permission to create the sub-domain is confirmed (similar to transferring ownership of a domain) before the sub-domain record is kept. &nbsp;It may be possible to create a domain that is simply a "free-for-all" of sub-domains and defined as such when the domain is created. &nbsp;An example of this would be a domain named, "bitcoin" and "btc" which would permit the creation of a domain like "mtgox.btc" or "mtgox.bitcoin". &nbsp;On the other hand somebody creating "this.sucks.coca-cola" may have to negotiate with the domain holder of "coca-cola" in order to create those sub-domains.<br/><br/>Since the sub-domains have their own record, they can also point to separate resources including separate IP addresses.<br/><br/>Essentially, this is also allowing anybody and everybody to create their own top-level domain and charge whatever they want to use that "top level" domain, but it also makes such TLDs essentially worthless for the most part too.<br/><br/>I'll be nice and give "p2p" to perhaps the "dot p2p" folks as well if they want it. &nbsp;I'm sure somebody would be willing to donate 0.01 BTC to get that record into the database.<br/><br/>Are there any flaws with this idea, or should it "go official"? &nbsp;</div> text/html