j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckM<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27443#msg27443">Quote from: kiba on December 06, 2010, 07:30:53 PM</a></div><div class="quote"><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/>Bleg. All I need to do is change the name. <br/><br/>In any case, do ribuck and RHorning have any inkling on what you guys agree on and how to implement the protocol? The faster some things that are agreed on, the more code we can do.<br/></div><br/>The only thing I am banging my head against right now is the issue of how to get the block miners of the DNS blocks to get the transaction fees. I don't know if that is going to require a change in the Bitcoin protocol or if it can be adapted into the existing protocol. <a href="http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2077.0">This idea</a> shows some promise as one way to implement the idea, however I really don't like putting this data into the main Bitcoin transaction database and turning that into one huge monster generic database of home cooking recipes, porn, mp3s, Wikileaks documents, Heroin traffic routing instructions, and other miscellaneous junk. If you thought Bitcoins faced problems before in terms of governments wanting to shut it down because it is a competing currency, I think that puts it completely over the top without any of the protections that Freenet has put into the message routing protocol.<br/><br/>Where I'm having the problem is mainly that I don't think a "DomainChain" miner should get paid until the block they made is accepted deep into the chain, like at least 10 or so blocks deep (perhaps adjustable on that length with some formula too?) For the most part I don't think most miners are going to care as long as they eventually get paid for the work they did, but those who are attacking the network may want to suck up the bitcoins for themselves and not really doing any work in terms of generating the blocks necessary to keep this whole thing going.<br/><br/>By banging my head on this problem, I really mean that every possible option I've considered has a fatal flaw in it. I think the registration fees are an important part of this whole concept, however, as it makes the difference between a public commons free good and something where the consumer "pays the freight" for the network. I also think it will make the difference between limited vs. widespread acceptance of this system too.<br/><br/>If you want me to go over some of the ideas I've had, I'll gladly put those dead ends into another thread, as I've come up with at least a dozen different ways to solve this problem in detail... including ideas I even started to type up in various replies to posts on this forum and then simply hit the "x" on the tab in Firefox before I hit the post button because I realized it wouldn't work. Even the method of putting the data into the Bitcion transactions has a fatal flaw so far as it turns the BTC miners into DNS miners too (they keep the fees for themselves) and it enables some different kind of attacks on the DNS network as well. I hate to say it though, it may very well be the best route to take shy of some protocol extension to Bitcoin itself that would recognize independent data chains as a source of transactions.</div> text/html
https://whatsonchain.com/tx/7664c62f65752d60b6221bf8e0e00f3d26bb8e6d382269e01eb3c87a4db2a280