j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckM!<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27591#msg27591">Quote from: Anonymous on December 07, 2010, 03:21:10 AM</a></div><div class="quote">Could ip addresses themselves be managed by this system? The ipchain would prevent anyone having duplicate addresses. This removes central control of ip address allocation and the ability to track individual machines.<br/></div><br/>Having ip address themselves be managed by a bitcoin-like system is a very interesting idea...<br/><br/>I never liked how the government and major corporations get to dish out vast swaths of the ip spectrum by dictate and privilege...<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27591#msg27591">Quote from: Anonymous on December 07, 2010, 03:21:10 AM</a></div><div class="quote">Ipv6 has a privacy issue doesn't it? They stuffed ipv4 because address allocation became a scarce resource by bad management. <br/></div><br/>Is this privacy issue because ipv6 address will <a href="http://www.internetwk.com/columns/frezz100499.htm">embed your MAC address</a>?<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">IPv6, on the other hand, has 128 bits of address space, enough to provide a billion-billion addresses for each square meter of the earth's surface. How one could ever route that many addresses is an interesting question, but at least IPv6 will never run out.<br/><br/>As you might expect, the address field is so huge that the IETF didn't know how to assign it. So, in a move to get buy-in from established industry standards bodies, the right-most 64 bits were designated to contain EUI-64 format information. This is used by the IEEE to assign Ethernet addresses, which are normally not transmitted outside a user's LAN.<br/><br/>Included in EUI-64 are two interesting pieces of information: the registered manufacturer of your NIC card and your 48-bit Ethernet address. Surprise! Every packet you send out onto the public Internet using IPv6 has your fingerprints on it. And unlike your IP address under IPv4, which you can change, this address is embedded in your hardware. Permanently.</div><br/><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27591#msg27591">Quote from: Anonymous on December 07, 2010, 03:21:10 AM</a></div><div class="quote">Does .dnc = domain name coins?<br/><br/>We could co-opt the democratic national convention lmao. <br/></div><br/>LOLFEST! <img alt="Cheesy" border="0" src="/static/img/emoticons/cheesy.gif"/><br/><br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27506#msg27506">Quote from: RHorning on December 06, 2010, 10:09:42 PM</a></div><div class="quote"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27501#msg27501">Quote from: em3rgentOrdr on December 06, 2010, 09:57:27 PM</a></div><div class="quote">Exactly. My points exactly. The reason for halving bitcoins over time does not really exist for bitdnscoins.<br/></div><br/>Wondering aloud even more, what need do we have for a fractional bitdnscoin? I could imagine having a little bit of "change" but is there going to be any need for more than about three or four decimal places?<br/></div><br/>I agree...there is not as much reason for fractional bitdnscoins. That just complicates the algorithm and operation. Making bitdnscoin be simple unitary entities is much simpler and easy to understand, so it will increase the likelihood of widespread adoption. Simpler is better. Computer hardware and software like things simple.<br/><br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27506#msg27506">Quote from: RHorning on December 06, 2010, 10:09:42 PM</a></div><div class="quote">This is essentially the same issue just thought through from another perspective. Right now I think it is about 100 million "bitcoins" to the smallest unit as defined in the Bitcoin protocol. We really don't need that many decimal places even for trade purposes. I still like the uint64 structure used in the Bitcoin protocol, but with a mild sort of inflation happening to the currency (relative to Bitcions) I don't see any major deflationary pressure pushing the value down like I see for Bitcoins. Again, I am not an economist and this is going to take some hard economic theory and guessing which way even this currency might go in that perspective. The only other "currency" to make a real comparison about here is the coins on the test network, and the main thing there is that those coins aren't being traded... which makes even that a bad example.<br/></div><br/>Could you clarify? Are you talking about because bitcoins have a limited number of digits that it can be divided into (according to the algorithm), that therefore 1 bitcoin could be instead thought of a ~million mini nano-bitcoins that are of fundamental unit of trading size?<br/><br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27619#msg27619">Quote from: Anonymous on December 07, 2010, 04:13:05 AM</a></div><div class="quote">Anything is better than buying another domain from godaddy . <img alt="Smiley" border="0" src="/static/img/emoticons/smiley.gif"/><br/></div><br/>Awesome! NO need for the middle man! <del>rent</del><br/><br/>This brings up another interesting point: most people will not need to have to pay the yearly ~$10 rent to their domain name provider, if they generate the bitdnscoin themselves. Of course, this does not abolish rent on domain names, as there will be of course some mega bitdnscoin miners will speculate to purchase domain names they think will be in high demand, and will then rent out the popular domains they own.</div> text/html
https://whatsonchain.com/tx/58c885641652258aa0145d1e37c77d5091c342fe52a88ec974bd66c88221b5e7