Bitcoin Forum
September 29, 2016, 11:48:06 PM *
News: Due to DDoS attacks, there may be periodic downtime.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The economics of generalized bitcoin  (Read 7095 times)
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 01:49:39 AM
 #1

Jumping over from this excellent post by appamatto...

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

+1, think this is a fantastic idea.

However, I feel that economically, the mainline bitcoin block chain should be a currency-only block chain.

I don't like how bitDNS ties a single "blessed" market -- distributed data publishing -- so closely with the underlying currency.  It seems like those who use bitcoins for reasons unrelated to the block chain data publishing would be more unduly impacted by the use of currency for distributed data publishing.

Someone really needs to start a new block chain, BitX / GenCoins.  That would relieve the pressure off trying to stuff all these ideas into the world's digital software-fiat currency.

Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
appamatto
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 36


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 02:38:14 AM
 #2

Jumping over from this excellent post by appamatto...

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

+1, think this is a fantastic idea.

However, I feel that economically, the mainline bitcoin block chain should be a currency-only block chain.

I don't like how bitDNS ties a single "blessed" market -- distributed data publishing -- so closely with the underlying currency.  It seems like those who use bitcoins for reasons unrelated to the block chain data publishing would be more unduly impacted by the use of currency for distributed data publishing.

Someone really needs to start a new block chain, BitX / GenCoins.  That would relieve the pressure off trying to stuff all these ideas into the world's digital software-fiat currency.


Thanks for the backup. :p

Yes, I think that the different bit-apps should be as orthogonal as possible, both to each other and to the "uber-chain" of BitX.

Honestly, bitcoin may not be the killer app for the block chain platform.  If this is the case then we run the risk of a more popular app leaving bitcoin in the dust, and then having someone incorporate a currency platform into that app, thereby dwarfing the bitcoin block history and popping the bubble.

That's why I think it's essential to "bind the fates" of the various bit-apps together in a single BitX "uber-chain" that can provide mutual protection for bit-apps like bitDNS and bitcoin as well as easily foster new apps.
Judson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22



View Profile
December 09, 2010, 04:14:52 AM
 #3

Agreed.

Not to mention that a decentralized DNS system, which I am not against, will have a tendency to skew towards the illegal/fringe uses where avoidance of the law is paramount.

For every Wikileaks, there are probably two somalian child porn sites (or pick your poison) that would enjoy freedom from government intervention.

Just my 2c
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 04:23:08 AM
 #4

Not to mention that a decentralized DNS system, which I am not against, will have a tendency to skew towards the illegal/fringe uses where avoidance of the law is paramount.

With all due respect, taking the site's domain name down won't do anything against criminal activity. It just make it harder to track.

Also, it was human elements that force domain name to be taken off the net.

If you have to say "Sorry, we can't do anything about it. It's against the protocol", than you can't take down the domain name or interfere with its operation.

Judson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22



View Profile
December 09, 2010, 04:32:19 AM
 #5

1) I understand that taking a domain name doesn't shut down the operation, but having a domain name at least makes it easier for the content to be accessed, and easier for it to be profitable for the wrongdoer, who can change hosts, etc, and just update the IP behind the domain.

2) Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by my post.

The point of my post was, why on earth would anyone want the main block chain of a new currency to be wrapped up in a decentralized DNS system that will tend to skew towards illegal (or at least *fringe*) activity? That isn't going to increase adoption.

Im aware that saying "its against the protocol" disallows anyone from taking a domain, but that is the point. Why would Bitcoin want to be a part of a DNS system anyway?
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 04:43:21 AM
 #6

1) I understand that taking a domain name doesn't shut down the operation, but having a domain name at least makes it easier for the content to be accessed, and easier for it to be profitable for the wrongdoer, who can change hosts, etc, and just update the IP behind the domain.

It also make them easier to track down. The authorities would ban/censor such site instead of actually solving problems.

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 04:44:42 AM
 #7

Im aware that saying "its against the protocol" disallows anyone from taking a domain, but that is the point. Why would Bitcoin want to be a part of a DNS system anyway?

That's a rather strange conception. DomainChain/BitDNS are available to anybody who wishes to use it.

nanotube
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 485


View Profile WWW
December 09, 2010, 04:46:41 AM
 #8

Thanks for the backup. :p

Yes, I think that the different bit-apps should be as orthogonal as possible, both to each other and to the "uber-chain" of BitX.

Honestly, bitcoin may not be the killer app for the block chain platform.  If this is the case then we run the risk of a more popular app leaving bitcoin in the dust, and then having someone incorporate a currency platform into that app, thereby dwarfing the bitcoin block history and popping the bubble.

That's why I think it's essential to "bind the fates" of the various bit-apps together in a single BitX "uber-chain" that can provide mutual protection for bit-apps like bitDNS and bitcoin as well as easily foster new apps.

you seem to be suggesting that somehow there would be a general "bitx" chain, which all the different apps use, and thus there's no fragmentation of cpu power. sounds theoretically nifty... but how would you achieve that? the point of bitcoin is that it makes it expensive, and verifiable, to insert data into the chain. if you have a separate chain that doesn't actually have any data in it... then how do you tie the 'apps' into it? it seems that you have not offered even an inkling of an approach that would make it possible? or am i wrong and i missed something in the upstream post?

Join #bitcoin-market on freenode for real-time market updates.
Join #bitcoin-otc - an over-the-counter trading market. http://bitcoin-otc.com
OTC web of trust: http://bitcoin-otc.com/trust.php
My trust rating: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=nanotube
Judson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22



View Profile
December 09, 2010, 05:00:27 AM
 #9

Kiba, maybe I'm not being clear or something?

Bitcoin is a currency.

People spend it. Use it as an investment. And in the future, it could be a rival to the currencies of some countries.

Why would the Bitcoin community want to have a distributed DNS system piggybacked on its chain? Yea, you could do that with the old client releases, but the new official client release does not support BitDNS/DomainChain. (I am upgrading, and won't support BitDNS/DomainChain).

If someone ***really*** wants a distributed dns chain, make your own chain!
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 05:02:52 AM
 #10

Why would the Bitcoin community want to have a distributed DNS system piggybacked on its chain? Yea, you could do that with the old client releases, but the new official client release does not support BitDNS/DomainChain. (I am upgrading, and won't support BitDNS/DomainChain).

Who say that I actually support BitDNS/DomainChain piggyback on the bitcoin chain?

Judson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22



View Profile
December 09, 2010, 05:08:31 AM
 #11

Then what point that I have mentioned are you against?

That having a domain name would help a hypothetical illicit online business?

That Bitcoin being interwoven with said illicit hypothetical online business by virtue of being its DNS provider is a bad thing?
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 05:25:06 AM
 #12

That having a domain name would help a hypothetical illicit online business?

That Bitcoin being interwoven with said illicit hypothetical online business by virtue of being its DNS provider is a bad thing?

Define an "illict" business.

Look, all I am saying that if somebody is doing something bad, it would better if we know about it, rather than remaining underground.

If he protocol will not get minced by "exceptions"...well all know how well that road turn out.[edit]

Judson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22



View Profile
December 09, 2010, 05:36:36 AM
 #13

Then do we disagree?  Smiley

You are against the protocol being filled with "other uses" (like BitDNS - an exception to normal use). If the official client only allows standard transactions, then the protocol is not getting "minced".

I feel like BitDNS stuff like this is just a phase. It won't last long, and will eventually be forgotten by the discovery of a new way to mine Bitcoins faster with the same hardware (or applicable "next big thing").
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 05:42:44 AM
 #14

Then do we disagree?  Smiley

Bad communication exacerbated by my brain not processing right(sleep deprived).
Quote
You are against the protocol being filled with "other uses" (like BitDNS - an exception to normal use). If the official client only allows standard transactions, then the protocol is not getting "minced".

"Minced" is allowing humans to do whatever they want, instead of adhering to strict procedure defined by software code. In other words, introduction unpredictable, and eventually a lack of respect for the rule of law. "Let censor this shit because I don't like it" that kind of thing.That is what I mean here. Unfortunately, my brain thought process wasn't translated accurately in the writing.

jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 07:03:37 AM
 #15

Another point is that BitDNS is essentially an autonomous entity that runs a paid service in a niche market (decentralized, timestamped, notarized data storage).  As such, it seems fundamentally unfair to integrate one service directly into the currency itself, while all other services ("the rest of the world") simply uses the currency itself.  BitDNS becomes a "blessed" provider, elevated above other websites, stores and services due to its direct integration into the currency transactions themselves.

This is certainly uncharted territory when it comes to currencies, but I would not like to speculate on how this changes the economics of bitcoin's value.

Succeed or fail, bitcoin-the-currency should stand on its own.

Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
da2ce7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1217


Live and Let Live


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 09:04:09 AM
 #16

The problem is that when I make a transaction, I announce: Please include this data, and I'll pay you this much for the service.

As a generator I don't care what the data is, providing it is paid for.

If somebody wants to put junk data into the chain, fine, but they should pay for it.  I don't care if it is currency data, or BitDns data, or whatever. Obviously _somebody_ cares about it enough to pay me to include it.

In essence, if the generators accept coins for including other data,  they are both supporting the bitcoin economy, and strengthening bitcoin from attack.

The reality is reality the network always will be run from the whims of the generators, this is by design.  There is no way to stop it.  The generators (as a group) have the power.

One off NP-Hard.
Timo Y
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


bitcoin - the aerogel of money


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 11:25:45 AM
 #17

Not to mention that a decentralized DNS system, which I am not against, will have a tendency to skew towards the illegal/fringe uses where avoidance of the law is paramount.

Serious criminals already operate mostly in darknets, not on the public web. The DNS is of no importance to them.

GPG ID: FA868D77   bitcoin-otc:forever-d
Judson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22



View Profile
December 09, 2010, 03:27:17 PM
 #18

Everyone is stuck on a hypothetical I gave out, with the point being that, IMO, bitcoin would need to be free from any uses that might discourage its uses, otherwise, the average user may not use it.

I think jgarzik says it best.

...unless the use of bitcoin for non-currency purposes discourages currency use.  Some uses of the network can act as an overall disincentive against mainstream use.  If people see that miners care little for currency transactions on the bitcoin network, or all the data spam increases TX fees to annoying levels, currency users will find a new network elsewhere.  If people find out law-enforcement-objectionable data such as "kiddie-pr0n.p2p DNS data" is being managed on this network, that increases the incentive for currency users to go elsewhere.

Maybe that makes some miners happy in the short term, and you happy, but I'm here for the revolutionary new type of digital cash.

And this generalized data timestamping/notary service seems like it has the distinct probability of degrading service for digital cash, if it is even remotely successful.


The truth, probably, is that bitdns will never be anything big. Heck, the guy from The Pirate Bay is making his own distributed DNS. The main client shouldn't have a transaction type specifically for DNS.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 03:34:05 PM
 #19

The truth, probably, is that bitdns will never be anything big.

And why do you think that is?
Quote
Heck, the guy from The Pirate Bay is making his own distributed DNS.

I started the bounty pledge drive precisely because I didn't like what the The Pirate Bay is doing.

ribuck
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 03:40:54 PM
 #20

Heck, the guy from The Pirate Bay is making his own distributed DNS.

It's important to understand a distinction here. They are making a distributed Domain Name Service, but are planning to depend on a centralized Domain Name Registration Service.

Bitcoin provides a great way to do a decentralized Domain Name Registration Service which would be a great match for their distributed DNS.
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!