Transaction

j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckM‚<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27714#msg27714">Quote from: Anonymous on December 07, 2010, 10:19:27 AM</a></div><div class="quote">Would introducing extra overhead into the existing chain make this cumbersome and maybe introduce vulnerabilities into the financial system?<br/><br/>After all who wants to download a massive block chain just to buy or transfer a domain name? <br/><br/>Is it enough that a parallel domain chain is certified as the way to get a bitdomain? Do we want developers concentrating on other applications rather than the core purpose of bitcoin?<br/><br/>It seems this could be a way for bitcoin to have its own "app" store of different block chain purposes.&nbsp; <img alt="Smiley" border="0" src="/static/img/emoticons/smiley.gif"/><br/></div><br/>An interesting thread related to this can be found here: <a href="http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2124.0">http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2124.0</a><br/><br/>Theymos has been discussing how to put miscellaneous data into the transaction blocks themselves, but there are dangers to doing that.&nbsp; It also shows some incredibly strong resistance to "tweaking" Bitcion itself as a software package to permitting this kind of activity, which seems to me as coming from at least a source that would end up killing any attempt to put a patch into Bitcoin to permit data inclusion for something other than the "stealth" method with transactions.<br/><br/>While the suggestion that Git itself ought to be sufficient for cryptographic timestamping and cryptographic data storage (that is interesting by itself... something I haven't thought about), I don't know enough about Git to say much about it at all in terms of its distributed nature.<br/><br/>I firmly believe you should "pay your own freight" so far as anything which costs others to do, which is why I think this proposal is incredibly useful.&nbsp; There are costs associated with domain name registration and data storage, and they aren't trivial expenses either.&nbsp; The concept of Bitcions enables those costs to be borne by those who use the service.&nbsp; I tried to explore this idea further on this thread:&nbsp; <a href="http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764.0">http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764.0</a><br/><br/>This is indeed a political idea here too, which is where perhaps it is getting some resistance as well.&nbsp; The idea could be summed up with the concept that "you get what you pay for".&nbsp; Places like Source Forge offer their "services" for free, but there are hidden costs including being tied to other outside interests.... mainly the advertisers and those who are paying for the "service".&nbsp; With what we are proposing for BitDNS/Domain Chain is that the service is going to be focused upon those who are paying for the service.... which is those who are making the registrations.&nbsp; They have the most to lose if this project falls apart.&nbsp; If the registrants aren't happy with the service, fees are going to go down and the DCC is going to collapse as a currency.&nbsp; That in turn is going to cause developers to be very strongly focused upon meeting the needs of that community.<br/><br/>The other aspect which is really interesting here is that the process of becoming a "registrar" has a very low barrier to entry.&nbsp; I'm sure many people would love to have had the chance to do something like being BigDaddy or Verisign in terms of processing domain registrations and receiving the fees for doing that.&nbsp; Now the chance to perform that sort of "business" at least on a part time basis is at least possible.&nbsp; No single person or even central organization is going to be receiving the fees but rather a "community" that is open to newcomers and even people with modest technical skills.<br/><br/>I've also seen complaints that "open source software" doesn't pay.&nbsp; Bitcoin can change that model, including doing things like we are talking about here with the DomainCoin system.&nbsp; Not only can a bounty system be set up for integrating a specific feature into the system, but the developer can also have a continuing source of income afterward.&nbsp; BTW, in deference to Kiba, the license itself is immaterial here too and can simply be thrown into the public domain, even though I think that copyleft licenses tend to offer much stronger protections against idiots who would attempt to mess with you in the legal system.&nbsp; You may want to avoid the judicial system, but sometimes it comes and bites you hard even if you are active in trying to stay out of its reach.&nbsp; Time is really the one resource that anybody has to sell when you finally get down to the gritty details of economics, and it takes time to be a developer to create projects like this.&nbsp; Also, even simply maintaining the software afterward takes time and effort, fixing bugs that show up and perhaps putting in tweaks.<br/><br/>Anyway, enough of the issue with the overhead costs.&nbsp; I am afraid that this is going to effectively split or fork the Bitcoin network, and that isn't a good thing either.&nbsp; I want to work with the Bitcoin community, but if they won't have us, we may have to move on.&nbsp; Threats to Bitcoin will still be relevant and I'm not going to leave completely in a huff, but as a separate application it will be essentially a fork of Bitcoin if we proceed with the path I've suggested in terms of a completely separate coin chain and currency.&nbsp; It might be interesting so far as a social experiment is concerned to see which way is better and which "coin" is going to be more accepted in the long run.&nbsp; I am challenging some of Satoshi's assumptions here too, but not overly so.&nbsp; Two very similar project with slightly different goals but which also support each other might be beneficial to each other as well, especially as there is going to be a huge amount of common ground to work with.</div> text/html