BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin

[theymos]

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.

[1715550699]

1715550699

[1715550699]

1715550699

[1715550699]

1715550699

[1715550699]

1715550699

[em3rgentOrdr]

You have forgotten the rule that I asserted earlier in the thread:

When in doubt, remove human elements. Adopt certainty of computer software code over uncertainty of judges. Complicated rules invite gaming and abuse.

Nowhere did I suggest that we should give authority to whoever, or shutting down the DNS system in favor of court/judges/messyhumanjudgement.

Kiba is wise beyond his years!

Anyway, I've been thinking outside the box a little bit...and wondering maybe to scratch the whole idea of domain names.  I'm thinking somehow be able to associate a bitcoin address, or maybe some hash of a transaction, with a location on the internet somehow.  Also, it maybe possible to sidestep away from the concept of domain names considering that nowadays search engine technology has improved so much.

Wouldn't it be cool to associate a bitcoin address directly with a webpage/internet location for that product/resource/whatever that is being sold with that bitcoin address?  Anyway, let me think about this some more and write out a concrete proposal.  Obviously, this is sortof off topic from this thread...

[RHorning]

Asking as a general question, is the whole concept of throwing the data into transactions a dead issue now?  With the release of Bitcoin v. 3.1.18 Satoshi has essentially thrown down the gauntlet that adding such data to transactions is considered a form of an attack on the network.  Miners who aren't using a codebase derived from the reference implementation still may add blocks to the network involving these "goofy" transaction packets, but by design the reference implementation will not recognize the transactions.  If we work around the IsStandard() algorithm, it is only going to change to stop whatever changes we make.

This is a subtle but interesting issue where essentially the only way we can guarantee that a domain transaction can be put into a block chain is to create a custom miner and compete for blocks to put those transactions into the network.  That makes for some interesting problems in terms of latency for an effort like DomainCoin.

Should we move onto the forked version of Bitcoin to implement this idea again?

[kiba]

Miners are rejecting the [edit]isStandard.

[RHorning]

Miners are rejecting the same.

How are the miners going to get these transactions?  I don't think the transactions are even being broadcast from one node to the next if they fail to meet the IsStandard() algorithm, but rather they must be put in directly by a miner.  I'll have to dig into the 0.3.18 source code for the details, but the description is just an initial shot across the bow on this concept.  If you have a miner as a peer who ignores this algorithm, they might get put into the block, otherwise you might just be SOL.  From what I understand, if all of your peers are 0.3.18 clients (and presumably later versions too) they won't even forward transactions to other peer nodes that are "corrupted".

It is a subtle change, but it is a big deal.

[MoonShadow]

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.

So what would prevent me from registering the domain jackass.theymos.btc? 

[kiba]

Others elsewhere or previously have suggested we build a chain dependent on the bitcoin chain. Some way to hash the data against a block.

That way, miners would still be strengthening the bitcoin network.

[appamatto]

Hey guys.  I'm really surprised that my post received so much attention!

And, I'm glad that BitDNS (or domain chain?) has generated this level excitement.

However, I urge you to re-read my initial post, as I feel that original formulation of the idea solves many of the problems you are currently discussing, including the (1) business-plan problem and (2) the bitcoin integration problem.  There is also a third problem which hasn't been brought up by anyone thus far, which is (3) the problem of dividing the CPU pool among multiple block chains.

In the original formulation, bitDNS is simply an example of a possible generalization of bitcoin.  It should be possible to dream up many such applications requiring block chains for systems that need some kind of quorum.

We should be discussing BitX, the general block chain that in the future will support both bitcoin and bitDNS.  It neatly solves (1) and (2), as well as the biggest problem in my view, the CPU pool division problem.

BitX is essentially an uber-chain which has hashes of app (bitcoin, bitDNS, ...) payloads as its payload.  This way a bitDNS server will only need to download its own app payload without worrying about bitcoin's payload and vice-versa.  As the number of bit-apps increase, this problem of smushing them all into bitcoin will only get worse, and (2) becomes a big problem that has to be solved for each app.  BitX neatly deals with applications liberally, leaving it completely up to them to decide their own protocols but forming a valuable backbone for them.

With bitcoin and bitDNS as separate apps running on BitX, (1) is easily solved with third-party escrows.  Escrowing is a big problem, and perhaps unsolveable, with respect to bitcoin and USD or PPUSD transactions, but it is incredibly reliable when executed between two bitapps.  A trusted escrow can receive both transactions, verify them mechanically and automatically release the assets when both transactions are properly verified.

Note that this also frees bitDNS from bitcoin baggage when bitMoney overtakes bitcoin as the most popular bit-currency.  I believe in fact that bitcoin in its present form will necessarily be overtaken due to problem (3).

The big deal: the CPU pool division problem.  CPU division will occur when bitcoin can't or won't support bit-application bitFoo.  This may occur with bitDNS, or it may occur later, but I think it will occur at some point.

Every miner for bitFoo will be one less miner for bitcoin and vice-versa.  Both of these systems will be twice as susceptible to attack (if they have roughly equal CPU pools), and the problem multiplies as the number of bit-apps and their block chains increases.

BitX cleanly solves this by having every bit-app generate on the same block chain, the BitX chain.  They weave their own block chains within the uber-chain, and unwittingly protect eachother from attack.  It also greatly speeds adoption of any given bit-app; the BitX miners are already generating bitcoins, so why not generate bitDNS names as well?  There is no cost to the miner, and who knows, this new-fangled bitDNS thing might actually take off someday?

Even if the demerits of separate block chains can be mitigated, the merits of a unified chain cannot be overstated in my view.

Finally, I hope that the name will remain BitDNS or BitNames, keeping the trend of revolutionary projects like bittorrent and bitcoin.  There isn't any reason to call it domainchain if it is built upon BitX in any case, because the name registration aspect will be an implementation on top of the BitX chain rather than a full implementation with its own chain.

This separation of concerns makes BitX and bitDNS/bitcoin simple enough that I feel I can implement them myself if necessary, although slowly, in my spare time.  I'm looking forward to some bit fun!

Thanks guys!

[theymos]

So what would prevent me from registering the domain jackass.theymos.btc? 

Nothing. But hopefully servers will ignore tricks like that.

How are the miners going to get these transactions?  I don't think the transactions are even being broadcast from one node to the next if they fail to meet the IsStandard() algorithm, but rather they must be put in directly by a miner.

Right. You can send directly to artforz.ath.cx or any of doublec's pool addresses. I will relay non-standard transactions at theymos.ath.cx.

[jgarzik]

We should be discussing BitX, the general block chain that in the future will support both bitcoin and bitDNS.  It neatly solves (1) and (2), as well as the biggest problem in my view, the CPU pool division problem.

BitX is essentially an uber-chain which has hashes of app (bitcoin, bitDNS, ...) payloads as its payload.

Responded, in this new thread.

[da2ce7]

I believe the problem with the generalized BitX is that the more that one adds to the chain, the higher the payload and overhead.

The solution to this is to use the Bitcoin chain, and use transaction fees to add additional content, the market will decide what is worth including in the chain or not, based solely on the cost/benefit of doing so.

EDIT: see http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1847.0  for info about how the transaction fees will dictate what is included in the chain.

[kiba]

I believe the problem with the generalized BitX is that the more that one adds to the chain, the higher the payload and overhead.

The solution to this is to use the Bitcoin chain, and use transaction fees to add additional content, the market will decide what is worth including in the chain or not, based solely on the cost/benefit of doing so.

Bigger stuff mean higher priority. Bitcoin users who didn't load the bitcoin chain data with lards are left with lower priority.

[Anonymous]

Ok its time to stop talking and do something. Create another genesis block for domaincoins. Bitcoin will be a pure financial vehicle from this point forward. As such it should be as lean as possible.

Problem solved. To provide the initial security to the network it needs a few miners with gpu cards.

Whos in?

[da2ce7]

Ok its time to stop talking and do something. Create another genesis block for domaincoins. Bitcoin will be a pure financial vehicle from this point forward. As such it should be as lean as possible.

Problem solved. To provide the initial security to the network it needs a few miners with gpu cards.

Whos in?

Not me! I think that nanotube's+theymos's proposal has real elegance! Creating another chain is all good and well, but the current chain can be used for many things, might as well maximize it's potential.

http://privwiki.dreamhosters.com/wiki/Bitcoin_DNS_System_Proposal

[ribuck]

Ok its time to stop talking and do something. Create another genesis block for domaincoins. Bitcoin will be a pure financial vehicle from this point forward. As such it should be as lean as possible.

Problem solved. To provide the initial security to the network it needs a few miners with gpu cards.

Whos in?

I'm not in for a new genesis block. It risks harming Bitcoin. If the alternative block chain is commercially successful, someone will add a currency to the alternate chain and it will overtake Bitcoin.

Anyway, don't think that Satoshi has killed the idea of Domain Names in the block chain. Here's what the latest changes mean:

1. If you register a domain name, you must connect to a miner that supports it (because standard clients won't relay your request). No problem. You will need to be using a modified client anyway (to give you a way to specify the domain name, the IP addresses and the fee) and the client can be designed to connect to known performant miners (which will probably be most of them).

2. The standard Bitcoin clients will accept the blocks generated by the performant miners, but won't see the Domain Name transactions.

So what's the problem? What's not to like?

I say we should continue to develop the ideas, then try them out on the test network.

[Anonymous]

I still hear talking. 

[em3rgentOrdr]

I was doing some reasearch into alternatives to DNS, and I was reading about how TOR's hidden services assigned .onion address, and I came across the concept of Zooko's Triangle, which argues that names cannot be global, secure, and memorable, all at the same time:



"Domain names, for example, are global and memorable, but as the rapid rise of phishing demonstrates, they are not secure".  Basically, there will always be imposters who try to claim the domain name of your brand or some misspelling.  So I'm almost wondering if the whole concept of domain names is fundamentally flawed to begin with.  And it seems there is always has to be some sort of centralized means of allocating domain names.  We can't even decide what should be the rate-of-issue for new bitDNS domain names, what the starting price should be for transaction/purchase, how many top Alexis domain names (if any) we should reserve, where/how should the domain directory be located/stored. Maybe we need to stop using domain names entirely, and put our focus more on search engines, links, coupled with public-key cryptography to authenticate the genuity of an internet brand/website/address.  I'm looking into some system called Pet Names...and am trying to figure out a nice way they could be used to assign unique, human-readable (memorable), and global names for bitcoin addresses.  I will start another thread for this, and provide a link here...

Anyway, I think NoAgenda is right here that the Bitcoin block chain, from now on, should be a pure financial vehicle, considering that the latest bitcoin version update removes the ability to include extra text in transactions:

Ok its time to stop talking and do something. Create another genesis block for domaincoins. Bitcoin will be a pure financial vehicle from this point forward. As such it should be as lean as possible.

[ribuck]

Maybe we need to stop using domain names entirely

If you try to redesign everything, you will end up successfully redesigning nothing.

The way for a small group to achieve success is to design a drop-in-replacement that's significantly better in one important way.

... considering that the latest bitcoin version update removes the ability to include extra text in transactions ...

Not so. The latest version won't include transactions with extra text in blocks that it generates itself, but it accepts blocks generated by others that contain transactions with extra text.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Maybe we need to stop using domain names entirely

If you try to redesign everything, you will end up successfully redesigning nothing.

of course, I didn't mean I wanted to redesign the whole DNS.  The conclusion of my musing is: maybe there is some way to associate bitcoin addresses with a unique and human readable (memorable) name using a petname system.

The way for a small group to achieve success is to design a drop-in-replacement that's significantly better in one important way.

I think this is important, and I encourage people to work on this.

... considering that the latest bitcoin version update removes the ability to include extra text in transactions ...

Not so. The latest version won't include transactions with extra text in blocks that it generates itself, but it accepts blocks generated by others that contain transactions with extra text.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

[ribuck]

Of likely interest:

"Gov't crackdown spurs initiatives to route around DNS"
http://www.itworld.com/legal/129947/net-censorship-dns-alternative