It appears this can support several top level domains, such as .anon, .sex, .p2p, or whatever. Other proposals envisioned a single new TLD like .bitdns.
This is like that, too. In this system, you're always registering a TLD. Even if I register "theymos.btc", I'm actually getting "theymos.". For better usability, though, BitDNS servers will make this a second-level domain by attaching a TLD like .bitdns or .btc to the registered name. The TLD in the registration is a suggestion for this: in this case, I'm suggesting that "theymos." be followed by "btc" (though the server is free to ignore my suggestion).
The idea is to allow maximum market adaptability. Probably all servers will just use ".btc" or whatever, and totally ignore the suggested value. As an example of something servers could do:
- If your suggested domain suffix is com/org/etc., then your domain will actually overrule .com domains of the same domain for those few users who have configured BitDNS to do so.
- Otherwise, ".btc" is used.
It's a bad idea to hardcode any TLD into the spec. What if ICANN allocates .btc?
A later version might also look at the entire name+TLD for uniqueness. It might be possible in that case to switch from old-style names to new-style names with namechange.
As long as they see that the domain name was registered with a large enough transaction fee to the miner, they will pass it through to the DNS. Is it possible that this is what was intended?
Yes. The idea is not to compensate the servers (usually), but to eliminate spam registrations. The BTC is the "proof-of-work".
The proposal seems to envision a relatively small set of DNS servers that would be authorities for these new domain names and be the ones who bring the names from the block chain into DNS. These would be somewhat analogous to registrars today.
The servers are analogous to DNS root servers. There may also be registrars, which will interface with several BitDNS servers (as current registrars interface with gtld-servers.net, for example).
In other words, this isn't really a distributed or P2P DNS system, or perhaps I'm missing something else here too. Each "TLD" would have its own central server where you would have to "pay" to get onto that server?
Certainly not. You pay and everyone recognizes you at whatever TLDs they have chosen to see BitDNS domains at.
Any additional fees being thrown with the "registration" is not going to anybody actually putting effort in terms of running the domain server or doing registrations.
Almost all of the load is carried by the Bitcoin miners, which is why they get most of the money. Some BitDNS servers will provide public lookup services, which demands some payment. I'm thinking that the registrants will pay these to list them, but maybe the people looking up BitDNS domains will pay them instead.
Over 10 years, the theymos/nanotube design might store anywhere between 600 bytes and 120,000 bytes per domain name.
The average Bitcoin transaction size is 216 bytes. Why does anyone care if BitDNS names are worth 3-500 Bitcoin transactions over 10 years? If miners are taking the transactions, then there is no supply problem. If there is a supply problem, then whoever pays more gets space in blocks. This is fair.
I'm starting to think that an everlasting registration really is the way to go.
Without an expiration, you need to download the entire block chain to get a current DNS database. Domains must expire if you want to allow end-users to run their own server.
It also destroys unique resources. The pricing scheme would have to control the use of these unique resources appropriately, which requires some market mechanism.
Show Posts
