j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMc<div class="post">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/> - the name itself (e.g. example.bitdns)<br/> - a hash of the owning public key (e.g. djiusjfkrhffhdehyormavtrr...)<br/> - 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/><br/>Subsequently a name might have two things happen to it:<br/> - the IP address of the DNS server might change<br/> - it might be transferred to a new owner<br/><br/>Both of these might be handled the same way, via a BitDNS transaction. The transaction would contain:<br/> - the domain name<br/> - the new owner key hash<br/> - the new IP address of the DNS server<br/>And it would be signed by the old owner private key.<br/><br/>As with Bitcoin, transactions would be broadcast and incorporated into the next block by miners.<br/><br/>Is this what people have in mind?</div> text/html
https://whatsonchain.com/tx/9ef0e51b7d4adaeab0aa4be754f3919bc88f8d084e00b0fca94dcd6a2d6a4d7c