Shouldn't address have "domains" (easy entry for normies)

[howard.ashoul]

Basically every server has its IP address. Like 123.321.123.234. But nobody would remmeber it and it would suck. Can you imagine:

"Best search engine is 109.232.43.213."
"Join summer sale at 123.123.423.121."

So there are domains. Which will convert it. You will write into browser Google.com and it will convert into 109.232.43.213.

"Best search engine is Google.com."
"Join summer sale at Amazon.com."


---------------------------------------------------------


Which brings to question. Shouldn't addresses have also "domains"?

"Donate 10BTC to 1NTjfpxaiV4NMyFhWhpNQwexxmxVPnN6od."
"Send me 10BTC to 1NTjfpxaiV4NMyFhWhpNQwexxmxVPnN6od."

vs.

"Donate 10BTC to ChildsLifeMatter."
"Send me 10BTC to JohnWild_Paycheck."


---------------------------------------------------------



Wouldn't it be so much easier for normies to pick this shit up? And start using crypto.

[1714137533]

1714137533

[1714137533]

1714137533

[1714137533]

1714137533

[1714137533]

1714137533

[DooMAD]

The tricky part is change addresses and those who are privacy conscious using a unique address for every single transaction.  Not the easiest thing to keep track of with what would probably (unless someone is an absolute genius and found a way to do it in a decentralised manner) have to rely on a centralised domain registrar.  And, much like centralised exchanges, what happens when they get hacked?  Could people conceivably lose access to coins if they have no idea which address they're actually using because they relied on a domain name? 

There have been attempts in the past to simplify addresses as a kind of social media profile.  I'm sure I remember signing up to something called onename several years ago and then never actually using it because it's functionality was pretty limited.  Even projects like NameCoin, which was designed to solve the problem of decentralising domain name registration for websites, haven't exactly flourished.  Either there isn't enough demand for the service, or the service has yet to become convenient enough.  It's probably a healthy mix of the two.  If it were an easy thing to solve, someone almost certainly would have figured it out by now.

[howard.ashoul]

You could be using addresses, as you can still use IPs. So no problem about privacy. It could be more like "Name of my wallet, in which all my addresses are stored". Then you would be just giving other people your wallets ID.

As go for hacking - I dont understand privacy/hacking. So maybe something like https, sending secret keys, md5, sums between domain provider and you? Maybe decentralized? Like 10 different providers have to confirm, that this domain contains all these addresses? Impossible to hack this... .

[aleksej996]

You could be using addresses, as you can still use IPs. So no problem about privacy. It could be more like "Name of my wallet, in which all my addresses are stored". Then you would be just giving other people your wallets ID.

As go for hacking - I dont understand privacy/hacking. So maybe something like https, sending secret keys, md5, sums between domain provider and you? Maybe decentralized? Like 10 different providers have to confirm, that this domain contains all these addresses? Impossible to hack this... .

Then those 10 would control the network. Bitcoin is designed for the reason that you don't need to trust anybody, here you would have to trust those 10 providers. There is no simple way of dealing with this now. You can look at Tor hidden service domains and see that they are also random, that is because that network has to be decentralized as well. Centralization isn't if you have one person in charge, it is if you have any set group in charge.

[howard.ashoul]

You could be using addresses, as you can still use IPs. So no problem about privacy. It could be more like "Name of my wallet, in which all my addresses are stored". Then you would be just giving other people your wallets ID.

As go for hacking - I dont understand privacy/hacking. So maybe something like https, sending secret keys, md5, sums between domain provider and you? Maybe decentralized? Like 10 different providers have to confirm, that this domain contains all these addresses? Impossible to hack this... .

Then those 10 would control the network. Bitcoin is designed for the reason that you don't need to trust anybody, here you would have to trust those 10 providers. There is no simple way of dealing with this now. You can look at Tor hidden service domains and see that they are also random, that is because that network has to be decentralized as well. Centralization isn't if you have one person in charge, it is if you have any set group in charge.

Well, basically people who are running Bitcoin right now would be also running this domain service.

They would have to process more data, but coins would be more valued, since it would final attract average normal people. And there would be more fees from processing transactions at the end.

[aleksej996]

Nobody is running Bitcoin right now. People compete for the longer chain and have economical incentive to work together, since every contribution to the longest chain is rewarded. It is the whole idea of Bitcoin. Decentralizing domain names would be an equally big idea on it's own, which is to complex to add to Bitcoin itself, if there are any good ideas in the first place on how that would be done in a decentralized manner.

[genesis.vision]

Unfortunately, this can't be done in a decentralized way. Ethereum has ENS, but only because  it has smart contracts that made it possible.

[achow101]

You could be using addresses, as you can still use IPs. So no problem about privacy. It could be more like "Name of my wallet, in which all my addresses are stored". Then you would be just giving other people your wallets ID.

That is not how Bitcoin works. The network has no concept of a "wallet". The network does not know nor does it care about what addresses are in your wallet. There is no such thing as a "wallet ID" to the network (or one that is consistent across multiple wallet implementations).

[DooMAD]

You could be using addresses, as you can still use IPs. So no problem about privacy. It could be more like "Name of my wallet, in which all my addresses are stored". Then you would be just giving other people your wallets ID.

That is not how Bitcoin works. The network has no concept of a "wallet". The network does not know nor does it care about what addresses are in your wallet. There is no such thing as a "wallet ID" to the network (or one that is consistent across multiple wallet implementations).

Precisely, you'd have to notify the domain registrar(s) every time you wanted to use a different address, so by the time you've given them the address, it's just as easy to cut out the middleman, skip that step altogether and give the address directly to the person you would like to receive a payment from.

Addresses are mathematically linked the private key, so the "easy" way to do it (but with some pretty hefty drawbacks) would be that the domain providers themselves could automatically update the address on-the-fly if they held the private keys and stored your funds for you.  But that is absolutely not recommended from a security standpoint.  Plus other wallet software probably still wouldn't recognise the domain format, so you could only transact with others who are using the same centralised service.  

I'd assume all the easy ways people could conceive to set it up would likely involve sacrificing security for convenience.  Which is probably why such a service hasn't become commonplace, despite the relative ease to set it up.  People generally value the security of holding their own keys over the convenience of having a domain.  Plus I'm assuming someone offering such a service wouldn't be doing it out of the goodness of their own hearts and might want to charge you for the privilege.

It seems smart contracts are the safest way to implement the idea so far, but those aren't exactly newbie-friendly either, plus that currently involves using altcoins like ETH or Qora, possibly some others too (RSK, anyone?  Honestly not sure on that one, never looked into it).  No smart contracts exist natively in Bitcoin yet.

So yeah, generally just not as easy as it sounds.