Transaction

j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckM·<div class="post">RHorning,<br/><br/>The one objection of yours that I can't address is the one about "shoving useless data into the transaction block". This is something for others to decide, and at this time I would respect whatever Satoshi said. But we should not be concerned about "opening the pandora's box" because the box is already open and lots of people are going to look inside in the future. That "problem" (if it is a problem) is for the owners of Pandora's Block Chain to decide.<br/><br/>What I suggest we do is to try out DomainChain on the test network, and see what bitcoiners think of it when it's able to be experimented with. I'm sure we'll get feedback on whether or not it's welcome in the live block chain.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27831#msg27831">Quote from: RHorning on December 07, 2010, 07:09:44 PM</a></div><div class="quote">Transactions really ought to be about bitcion transfers from one person to another, and the purpose of the script is to permit flexibility in terms of the method used to secure that transfer.&nbsp; It may be possible that the nature of the scripting language itself may be changed to specifically exclude a "payload" being used in this fashion.</div><br/>There's nothing forcing generators to include bitcoin payments that piggyback DomainChain data, but why wouldn't generators want to include them if the transaction fee is high enough to cover the extra costs plus a profit margin?<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">Another huge disadvantage is that this really isn't any sort of system for registering domains in a secure fashion.&nbsp; You might put into the "payload" any sort of in here, but there is no reason for anything or anybody to recognize this data.</div><br/>That's true, but it's no different from Bitcoin itself. The block chain only has value because a majority of users are prepared to interpret it in a certain way, according to certain rules. If that works well enough for coins, it will work well enough for domain names.<br/><br/>Although we need generators to include the DomainChain transaction data, we don't need the average person's bitcoin client to recognise that data, or act on it in any way. Only the resolver software, and the modified clients used by those who want to register domain names, need to recognize the extra data.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">Two people trying to register the same domain simultaneously would have no real means to identify who actually has the domain with this system.</div><br/>The first to get their registration into the block chain gets the domain. Ideally the generator who processes these transactions will reject the invalid one. Failing that, the resolver will certainly locate the valid one.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">It was also pointed out that transaction records can be dropped.&nbsp; For instance when you send a coin like this:<br/><br/>Generation Block -- &gt; Alice&nbsp; -- &gt; Bob -- &gt; Charlie<br/><br/>Since all that is necessary is to simply keep track of where the coin is currently at, all you have left is this:<br/><br/>Generation Block --&gt; Charlie<br/><br/>And all of the previous transactions are ignored and "forgotten".&nbsp; If your registration record is in one of those other transaction blocks, it is then lost.</div><br/>I don't think there is any problem here. The registration data is re-sent if the domain name is transferred to someone else by spending the coin. All we care about is who has the current registration. We don't care about the history of the domain name.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">This could work.</div><br/>Let's do the "simplest thing that could possibly work" for the proof of concept. This seems to be it. If people like it, they will accept DomainChain into the Bitcoin block chain. If they don't like it, we go to plan B.</div> text/html