Transaction

j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMó<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg26846#msg26846">Quote from: Hal on December 04, 2010, 07:47:51 PM</a></div><div class="quote">Let me clarify how I understand the BitDNS idea. First, I think it is somewhat misnamed, as we would not propose to replace the entire decentralized DNS infrastructure of A records, CNAMEs, TTL values, etc. What we want to change is the registrar function, which keeps track of who owns each name.<br/><br/>A domain name entry in this system has 3 parts:<br/><br/>&nbsp;- the name itself (e.g. example.bitdns)<br/>&nbsp;- a hash of the owning public key (e.g. djiusjfkrhffhdehyormavtrr...)<br/>&nbsp;- the IP address of the authoritative DNS server for the name (e.g. 1.2.3.4)<br/><br/>When you generate a block you get to create 50 of these entries, and you then own those 50 names. Of course they have to be new names that were not in earlier blocks.<br/></div><br/>I hope we aren't at cross purposes here as there are multiple ideas. &nbsp;My idea was more that you would throw in a "transaction" that would have a few bitcoins attached (as the transaction fee) so that any potential miner would be encouraged to put that particular "registration" into a block chain like the Bitcoin mining blocks. &nbsp;The "owner" is merely the person who paid the fee and is identified by a private/public hash like the Bitcoin addresses are being used right now. &nbsp;In fact, I would propose that the "owner" of a particular domain might as well be a Bitcoin address unless we can think of a more secure way of claiming such ownership.... which would be of value to the Bitcoin project if you can show it would be unsecure. &nbsp;It is tying the domain ownership to your wallet.dat file making your wallet even more valuable if you got one of these domains. &nbsp;The actual hash is irrelevant other than it should be defined in the protocol.<br/><br/>A block would have a limited number of "transactions" in it... perhaps just 1 but it could be 50 or slightly more. &nbsp;I don't mind putting a limit at 50 per block in the sense that it might drive up the value of an individual domain and set up some interesting economic theories so far as supply and demand are concerned. &nbsp;That is a network rule to define in this case. &nbsp;Obviously a miner could create one of these "domains records" for "free", but then again they are contributing to defending the integrity of the database through CPU proof of work.<br/><br/>So really a domain entry would be:<br/><br/>&nbsp;- the name itself (e.g. example.bitdns)<br/>&nbsp;- a hash of the owning public key (e.g. djiusjfkrhffhdehyormavtrr...)<br/>&nbsp;- an optional key which could identify a "new" owner in the case of somebody transferring control of the domain<br/>&nbsp;- the IP address(es) of the authoritative DNS server for the name (e.g. 1.2.3.4)<br/>&nbsp;- transaction fee paid in BTC<br/><br/>A block entry would also have a timestamp that could be rejected if it was for some time in the future<br/><br/>As a network rule any name collisions that can't be resolved as from the same person making a request for changes would be rejected. &nbsp;The cost to run this network would be through the transaction fees, where a "miner" may be as inclusive or selective as they care based upon the transaction fees involved. &nbsp;Miners might have a different fee schedule for "new" domains as opposed to existing domains and could discriminate on that basis... or simply only select to process one kind or another. &nbsp;All of this would be essentially a marketplace where those trying to "register" domains are playing chicken with those making the blocks, presumably with the miners wanting higher fees and those registering domains wanting lower fees. &nbsp;My bet is that domain registration fees would be considerably lower than what GoDaddy charges or for that matter any other domain registrar other than those who simply do it for free. &nbsp;Maintaining the DNS records does have a cost, which is the purpose of the transaction fee as well.<br/><br/>The only glitch here that I can see is trying to get those transaction fees to the miner. &nbsp;The miner needs to be able to demonstrate proof of work before they get paid, and presumably that the proof involved has generally been accepted into the network before they get paid as well. &nbsp;Otherwise, all I can see is that people are being altruistic and simply mining as a free public good.... which has problems related to a tragedy of the commons as well. &nbsp;I personally think that you should "pay your own freight" for things like this. &nbsp;Besides, it provides another way for people to earn bitcoins simply by leaving their computer running if you can get the transaction fees for running such a DNS mining application processing these records.<br/><br/>BTW, I created a stub of a document on the wiki for this concept if anybody is interested in filling out some more details of this idea in terms of a formal spec:<br/><br/><a href="http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bitdns_draft_0_1">http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bitdns_draft_0_1</a><br/><br/>I'll see what I can contribute to filling this out, and I'm thinking of bumping this idea up on my own priority schedule for perhaps writing an application to do this. &nbsp;It sounds like something to really get my teeth into even though I got a couple of other good ideas I'd like to try. &nbsp;Besides, it sounds like there is some real interest to get this going sooner rather than later among many in the Bitcoins community.</div> text/html