And please take your share out of the price posted by the uploader, rather than adding it on.

If the uploader prices something at BTC 0.1, that's what it should cost, not BTC 0.102.

Heh, heh, heh ... Don't you mean "If we all start giving our spouses / significant-others / parents bitcoins..."?

If you click "Profile | Personal Message Options" there's a checkbox you can select that says "Show a popup when you receive new messages?". It works well.

Ubitio.us expires the file too quickly. Bitcoinservice.co.uk requires registration. PasteCoin.com makes you wait a block for confirmation before you can download. So none of the services is really user-friendly.

Anyway, here are the files. It's nothing too exciting yet, it's just to show that I have actually done some work.

01-title.mp4 - First fragment of animated bitcoin movie (no sound yet)
Opening Title
http://pastecoin.com/download.php?file=86
0.1 BTC, 600kB

02-currency.mp4 - Second fragment of animated bitcoin movie (no sound yet)
Bitcoins moving around the world
http://pastecoin.com/download.php?file=87
0.1 BTC, 600kB

No template-based transaction rewriting please. It would hugely widen the attack surface for exploits.

Let me throw in a rough outline of a completely different idea, that is not based on the Bitcoin chain.

Suppose the rule is this:


Here's how it would work. If no-one else has registered the name that you want, post a mapping from it to your nameservers, together with a hash that represents some proof of work. Now keep on hashing, and every time you find a stronger proof of work, re-post your claim with the stronger proof attached.

As long as you keep hashing, you will occasionally find a stronger hash, which will strengthen you claim on the name.

If someone else also wants your domain name, they can start hashing but you already have a head start. Of course, they can devote more machines to hashing than you, in which case they may be able to generate a better hash and take over your name.

Of course no-one wants to randomly lose their name because someone else was lucky enough to get a very good hash without really trying, so the rule could be that a hostile takeover requires a proof of work 16 times harder. Also there could be a 30-day delay before the takeover, which gives the existing owner a window to hire a server farm and retain the name if it's worth enough to them.

The end result is very different from our current system, but in the end it allocates every domain name to whoever actually wants it the most.

Feel free to write it up on a new page at the domainchain.org wiki if that's convenient for you:
http://domainchain.org/wiki/doku.php?id=start

Subscriptions solve the front-running problem, but how exactly would they work?


So who is the initial 100 BTC paid to? And how do the extra 0.01 in transaction fees get to the next 10,000 miners? Not by means of 10,000 transactions presumably...

"We" can't release any kind of statement.

You could release a statement. Satoshi could. Joe Plumber could. But "we" can't release a collective statement, because we aren't a collective.

Will it be open source or proprietary?

Front-running by miners is a flaw of the current proposals, and it's where I'm stuck. I haven't moved my DomainChain proposal further forward in the past couple of days because I can't solve the front-running problem.

The essential flaw is that domain registrations are contingent on transaction fees. A miner who generates a block can include a large number of speculative high-value registrations in that block, because the transaction fees don't cost them anything. This might be an intractable problem for any domain name registration system that is based around transaction fees.

I see that theymos/nanotube are proposing a "solution" to this. Their idea is that it should take more than one transaction to register a domain name; five transactions in fact. The first transaction pays one-fifth of the fee. Then, for the registration to be valid, there must be four further "fee adjust" transactions, each for one-fifth of the fee. These transactions must take place within ten blocks of the first transaction, to be valid.

My first objection to this is that it doesn't solve the problem of miner front-running; it just makes it more difficult. A few of the largest miners will just make an arrangement to mutually-process each other's fee adjust transactions. Almost inevitably, the design will produce a small group of large registrar-like operators.

My second objection is simply that 5-transaction registrations add an enormous amount of clutter to what should be a simple and elegant process.

Yeah. It's the rate of increase that counts. That's what she said anyway.

I suggest to make it smaller, e.g. 40kB. An ad is going to be served thousands of times each day. It's worth a little effort to make the ad load fast.

I'm not saying this for the sake "of the internet"; I'm saying it for the sake of the service. Owners of websites don't like ad services that make their website seem slow.

I bid 21,500,000.

Oh, hang on...

The face is looking pretty good now.

One problem with pastecoin.com is that the site makes you wait for a confirmation before it becomes possible to download. The other download sites are better, because they allow you to download as soon as you have paid.

You think those people don't already call for this?

The average of 275 bytes per transaction is interesting, I think.

One threat is from heirs of the original author, who claim that because the coypright disclaimer is unlawful, they retain the copyright and are therefore "owed" a lot of money.

Three months is a long time in Bitcoin land!

Three months ago, TTBit speculated that the difficulty level would be 1000 by year end.  FreeMoney replied "2000 at least imo, but my guess is 8500" and here we are at over 12000 already with some difficulty adjustments still to come before year end!

Those wagering on this one might be interested in the previous wager. I wonder if anyone other than TTBit took a position on difficulty factor > 50,000?