I already have a DNS resolving server set up to transparently resolve .bit names.  I'm discussing the hypothetical situation where the .bit namespace is allocated by ICANN to some registrar.
While I tend to agree it 'probably' won't happen - it's not so easy to evangelize a system based on such a fuzzy 'probably'.
I guess we just have to hope .bit can get enough traction as a useful alternative system that ICANN will at some point be more or less forced to interoperate with it.

You still seem to be being browser-centric.  I have servers which don't even have a browser on them - and if .bit ever gains wider traction, I'd like them to be able to resolve .bit names.  (for email, serverside api requests etc)
If various applications that might need to talk to your .bit domain need to be specifically configured or even reprogrammed - it greatly reduces the utility of the whole idea.

I guess it may still have some niche uses even if it's unable to be used in a properly integrated way with DNS - but I hope that as Khal suggests, the probability of ICANN allocating .bit to a registry is low. 

Already I notice the situation with .bit domains is less than ideal in the chrome browser at least.   
A non-existant .bit name is treated differently to a non-existant .com name.
A bogus .com name brings up the webpage not available screen indicating a DNS error, but if I put in a bogus .bit name - the chrome search feature is activated.  Somehow under the covers chrome seems to treat .bit differently to other toplevel domains.

I think he's saying that bitcoin will be big in the extreme-sports industry.

I hope people here will in general leave those free bitcoins for people who are brand new to bitcoin.
I don't know how many roger is handing out, but it'd be kinda sad if existing bitcoiners slurped them up :/

I don't think any bitcoin enthusiasts could hold up the price..  because when they think it's already at a ridiculously low price they'll spend all their available money leaving nothing to stop it dropping further as the newly mined coins continue to flood in and the disillusioned/fatigued jump out.

or perhaps, in exchange for goods and services we could give a Financial Unit Cryptographic Key.  

New geeky bitcoin slogan?   'Bitcoin gives a Financial Unit Cryptographic Key for you'

I don't agree a rebranding is desirable, but I'm happy to play with name ideas..

My 1st shot:  keycoin - as a nod to the public key cryptography behind it  (cryptocoin is too 'scary' I think)

So the bulk of that is 1 person with a bid for 24,560,177 BTC at 0.00001 USD

For a mere $245 or so.. you too can be 'the manipulator'!

Strange that mtgox even allows a bid of more coins than can possibly exist though :/

The image at the top of the pdf says www.bitgroups.com -  looks like it should be www.bitgroups.org though.. right?

A namecoin article which mentions it's bitcoin heritage.

This one strikes me as a bit of a non-story... but I guess it's a press hit.


Well it shows they're currently under control of a single entity - but it says nothing about ownership.
I think it's an interesting hint at how centralized the exchange market is.. but not much more.

Pretty sure 500K is meant!

Just a very short bitcoin intro/description piece:

Because they're pretty much opening up arbitrary toplevel domains to whoever has deep enough pockets and the facilities to run a name registry.
The risk is that *someone* wants to run the .bit space, whether for its own sake, or to deliberately bring the space namecoin is trying to occupy back under control.
I have no real idea how likely that is  - but the mere possibility makes .bit less attractive.

The first few dips looked like smilies - the later ones look like shark's teeth.
That does indeed explain everything, thank you.

That situation seems decidedly un-nothing-like to me, and awfully browser-centric.

As it currently stands, DNS resolver operators can add transparent support for the .bit space 'as if' it were the same as any other toplevel domain.
Scripts/email systems etc can then resolve .bit names without specific configuration.

The fact that ICANN may effectively yank this mode of operation out from under us (you can bet nearly all resolver operators will revert to resolving official ICANN names) is surely a risk which may make it hard to convince operators to support it in the first place.

isutech.wordpress.com is an illinois state university blog 'funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation.'

I don't recall even seeing your username before let alone a month-long thread on some topic related to this.
Thread-reference - or suffer the bumps more humbly please.

That was my first thought on the issue too.  I do wonder however if this holds true for the long-term possibility of a vastly bigger and more complex node space.

Could it one day be profitable to create vast armies of selectively-relaying nodes, with the hope of 'surrounding' some proportion of transaction-generating participants? 

Transaction-funnelling aside...  there is already an incentive to create such a system of nodes which 'instrument' the bitcoin network in order to de-anonymize transactions and analyse flows. (as mentioned by Dan Kaminsky)    For an organisation already set up to sell bitcoin econometric data from their massive node network - it may be tempting to earn some kickbacks from large miners to do preferential-relaying.

What could the Bitcoin supporters do to counteract this?  Run their own clouds of honest nodes? Even if the cost per node is pretty low - they're competing with bad node operators who are earning something from their nodes.  I guess the miners themselves would then have an incentive to run as many honest (or self-directing!) nodes as possible too. Do we end up with not just the hash-power arms-race - but also a node-count competition?