DIANNA: the IANA Decentralized design concept

[pent]

==UPDATED: 02 Mar, 2012

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete" Buckminster Fuller

"Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world." Margaret Mead

Quotes from http://p2pfoundation.net/

==

After inspecting a bunch of distributed DNS creation attempts (NameCoin, BitDNS, DNSchain) I wrote a new system design concept.

DIANNA - Decentralized Internet Assigned Names and Numbers Authority. Primary usage: Decentralized, authoritative, P2P DNS System.

This system is aimed to get rid of any central Internet Authorities (ICANN, IANA and others) which are vulnerable to pressure from some sorts of interested parties and groups. Yes, they are vulnerable to Internet Censorship attempts.

But the first close objective of this system is to provide authoritative DNS for such anonymous networks as I2P, Tor, Freenet.

DIANNA design is based on alternate Bitcoin block chain. DIANNA is not a fork of Bitcoin, but an extension.

==Design version 1.5 02 Mar, 2012

http://dianna-project.org/wiki/Design_Overview
v1.5 http://dianna-project.org/wiki/Design_Changelog

====

The authoritative domain reply lookup will be as follow:

For first, DNS client queries for particular domain and network returns a last domain transaction hash and block hash. Highest block wins - as always. Here client can verify that block hash is present in local headers chain and has a particular height.

For the second, client queries the network for Merkle Tree branch for needed domain transaction and transaction data itself. Here he can verify that transaction data are correct by reassembling Merkle Tree and comparing its root hash against local stored block header in chain.

Since client ensured that network returned *valid* *last* transaction for this domain, he can easily resolve domain into VALUE containing in transaction output.

Peace a cake

I need volunteers to code this tree of freedom. Primary, I need the project manager which will coordinate programmers. For the first steps I can be ideologist, project manager and programmer in one But I really need a help.

And please draw your attention: this is not Bitcoin fork, but an extension.

[1715665689]

1715665689

[1715665689]

1715665689

[1715665689]

1715665689

[1715665689]

1715665689

[1715665689]

1715665689

[1715665689]

1715665689

[ptshamrock]

WOWI! That looks cool ! Great Amount of Work u put in there !

[slush]

Dianna - DNS system on steroids :-)

[Raoul Duke]

Now this is something. It even has a marketable name and great features. I can see this taking off, honnestly.

Man, you may be the one to convince me to get into the mining business with this DNS system.

[Mushoz]

Really great idea! I love the fact you have something laid out, with arguments and ideas, rather than just a vague description of what you want to do. This could materialize really fast and become something awesome! This has potential Is it going to support merged mining by the way? May have missed it, but I don't think I could find anything about it on the wiki.

[pent]

Thank you.

Contributors wanted! C++ coders, donations also welcome! All donations will go to coders' work. I only coordinate this project.

[pent]

Dianna - DNS system on steroids :-)

 

[pent]

Is it going to support merged mining by the way? May have missed it, but I don't think I could find anything about it on the wiki.

I still din't get the purpose of merged mining. This looks like a cheat rather than something really useful. It is profitable only for one side (aux chain). I don't want to substitute DIANNA's chain to bitcoin or any other.

Also they say merged mining is full of bugs and possible double spent situations.

The main questions, why is this for? What for DIANNA should put its chain to risk? For possible popularity increase? The idea and design makes the popularity - not tricks.

If people like it, they will mine, they will use. All other - blasphemy

[DeathAndTaxes]

Is it going to support merged mining by the way? May have missed it, but I don't think I could find anything about it on the wiki.

I still din't get the purpose of merged mining. This looks like a cheat rather than something really useful. It is profitable only for one side (aux chain). I don't want to substitute DIANNA's chain to bitcoin or any other.

Also they say merged mining is full of bugs and possible double spent situations.

The main questions, why is this for? What for DIANNA should put its chain to risk? For possible popularity increase? The idea and design makes the popularity - not tricks.

If people like it, they will mine, they will use. All other - blasphemy

People liking it has nothing to do with mining at least not any significant hashing power.

Without merged mining if you chain is less profitable to miners than Bitcoin you are asking them out of the  goodness of their heart to lose money helping you out.  While some will most won't and that will keep the network small, weak, and vulnerable to attack.

[pent]

Does anybody know how much power aux chain gets from parent chain? At least average?

Maybe we just have to switch to another sort of cryptography functions, which use floating point for example? The MM smells bad for me, its like a parasite. Needs additional research.

[Rassah]

Just finished the paper. Some questions:

You mention a part of the system includes compensation/ rewards for miners. In what form are those rewards distributed? Some type of coin that lets them register more names (like in Namecoin)? Some alternate version of Bitcoin that only has use as a currency? Something else?

Will this allow for merged mining? (hit post, walked away, didn't see it didn't post due to new replies) Namecoin mining doesn't pay a high reward, but since it is bootstrapped to Bitcoin mining, mining Namecoin is essentially free, and any reward above 0, no matter how small, makes it still be worth it. The other benefit is thatwith MM, the mining infrastructure is already there, and it's HUGE, giving the alt chain instant protection against attacks. Starting from scratch would mean people would have to dedicate time and resources specifically to this, which, since the rewards wind won't have much value at the beginning, will mean that people mining at the start will pretty much have to all be volunteers.

Are there any considerations for database sizes? I've read somewhere (take with grain of salt) that the current ICANN DNS database is over 10 terrabytes in size. That's not something regular home users can support. Will this database/blockchain eventually have to be relegated to a few large centralized data storage places?

Are there any considerations for growth? The part that concerns me about Namecoin is that block rewards are constant for long periods of time, which means the maximum number of registrations per year is limited. Will your chain generate a decreasing reward like Bitcoin, level rewards (eg 50 per block) for ever,  growing exponentially (3% increase every year to keep up with population/technology/other growth), or something else?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Does anybody know how much power aux chain gets from parent chain? At least average?

NMC is roughly 40% of the BTC network ~4TH/s.

Maybe we just have to switch to another sort of cryptography functions, which use floating point for example? The MM smells bad for me, its like a parasite. Needs additional research.

Maybe you misunderstood me.  The efficiency (or lack thereof) isn't what matters.

Say I have a 5970.  I can earn 0.5 BTC per day with it.  If performing proof of work for an alternative xCoin I can get 0.1 BTC (equivelent) per day then the xCoin network is asking me to forgo 0.4 BTC revenue to "help" xCoin.

Now lets abstract that further.  A 5970 costs ~$400.  $400 (and some time/skill) "buys" me 0.5 BTC per day in revenue.  Now lets say xCoin works best on TI-85 graphing calculators.  If $400 in calculators only nets me 0.1 BTC (equivelent) you are still asking me to take a lower return on my capital.  How you perform the proof of work isn't all that important.

Not saying you should merge mine but you should look at the economics of it.

You choices really are:
New GPU optimized algorithm  (directly competing against BTC daily revenue).
A new CPU based proof of work (since GPU miners have idle CPU)
Merged Mining GPU (SHA-256) proof of work
Merged Mining CPU (Scrypt) proof of work.

[matthewh3]

How about doing merged mining with Litecoin CPU mining then your not competing against NMC or anyone.

[pent]

In what form are those rewards distributed? Some type of coin that lets them register more names (like in Namecoin)? Some alternate version of Bitcoin that only has use as a currency? Something else?

The DIANNA will have its own financial block chain like Bitcoin. If we cut the domain operations, it will function like Bitcoin cryptocurrency with its own block chain and own "coins".
Those coins will be used also like alternate currecy.

Actually, DIANNA operates like NameCoin, but:
- registration fee is returned to miners (not destroyed) and caused additional proportional difficulty overhead to be not free
- registration fee defined by free market agreements, not by system. System can only suggest its value at first stages like bitcoin tx fee
- coins are not used as a domain name carrier

The registration fee of DIANNA's chain will be defined by communty like fees in "post-apocalyptic" Bitcoin (when coinbase dropeed to low values at lately stages).

Will this allow for merged mining? (hit post, walked away, didn't see out didn't post due to new replies) Namecoin mining doesn't pay a high reward, but since it is bootstrapped to Bitcoin mining, mining Namecoin is essentially free, and any reward above 0, no matter how small, makes it still be worth it.

I am still not considered with this. Merged mining needs additional research. See posts above.

Are there any considerations for database sizes? I've read somewhere (take with grain of salt) that the current ICANN DNS database is over 10 terrabytes in size. That's not something regular home users can support. Will this database/blockchain eventually have to be relegated to a few large centralized data storage places?

The first thing is yes, this will be heavy.
The second is the words of Satoshi:

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

So the DIANNA won't be so popular due to big data sizes. Users will have to have a good hardware to run the full client.
Although, the lightweight clients (i.e. DNS clients) are possible. They will just listen to network and do not write whole database, but only needed namespace.

However I already thought to put the full block chain to DHT database and on clients keep only reasonable its part, other part will represented only as headers. If client need a full block record which it hasn't, he queries DHT for it. Since client has a hash of this block, he can verify whether DHT returned valid block.

Are there any considerations for growth? The part that concerns me about Namecoin is that block rewards are constant for long periods of time, which means the maximum number of registrations per year is limited. Will your chain generate a decreasing reward like Bitcoin, level rewards (eg 50 per block) for ever,  growing exponentially (3% increase every year to keep up with population/technology/other growth), or something else?

I think the Bitcoin emission model is fine. 50 coins means 5E9 "coin quantums". One coin is int64 = 1E8. I think this is totally fine. Correct me if I mistake.

[pent]

How about doing merged mining with Litecoin CPU mining then your not competing against NMC or anyone.

I don't competing with anyone. I just want Internet to be free. Like speech.

I need to research merged mining for considerations about its use.

[pent]

I just thought the solution to put full chain on DHT is very good

Found a doc about designing low-latency DHT.

pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/dhash:nsdi/paper.pdf

One more research Anyone help? I do not going to own this project, it is a property of sociaty. And sociaty help needed.

[Rassah]

How about doing merged mining with Litecoin CPU mining then your not competing against NMC or anyone.

I don't cometing with anyone. I just want Internet to be free. Like speech.

I need to research merged mining for considerations about its use.

I think a big question you will have to answer is how will you get it started. Initially the coins will have very little value, relying on people donating their time and hardware for very little reward (likely negative profit), and the initial size of the network will mean 51% attacks or general mayhem will be very easy to carry out. It's the same issue that plagues all alt coins.
I'm not entirely sure why the parallel separate currency is needed, either, since the part that is used to register already has its own value. Can't the registration fee itself be set by the domain buyers, and miners decide whether the fee is high enough? (Admittedly, I don't understand why Namecoin has fixed registration fees)

I do hope this idea gets developed. I'm just concerned it may not be able to start.

[Raoul Duke]

Man, I wish I knew how to program so I could help you somehow.

Anyway, if you need something translated into portuguese or help to promote it I may be able to help you. Beyond that, I dunno.

[pent]

I think a big question you will have to answer is how will you get it started. Initially the coins will have very little value, relying on people donating their time and hardware for very little reward (likely negative profit), and the initial size of the network will mean 51% attacks or general mayhem will be very easy to carry out. It's the same issue that plagues all alt coins.

This you said divides on three parts:
1. The problem of initial demand. The initial demand for this system is in anonymous networks. Many-many people put their effords to invent similar system. Since it will work and lightweight client integrated in I2P, I sure ThePiratebay will be the first domain client. And this will be enough for big massmedia advertisement, like SilkRoad advertising bitcoin ))
2. The problem to motivate miners to mine. Its not a problem, I can mine by myself.
3. The main problem: 51% attacks. Here is a big field for thoughts. Either to use MM, which is totally alpha, or consider using more advanced cryptography which can deal with exponental network power growth.

I'm not entirely sure why the parallel separate currency is needed, either, since the part that is used to register already has its own value. Can't the registration fee itself be set by the domain buyers, and miners decide whether the fee is high enough? (Admittedly, I don't understand why Namecoin has fixed registration fees)

Separate currency needed to motivate miners to secure authoritative records and manage network.

I don't see a clear way to connect Bitcoin currency chain with alternate key/value chain. Financial and key/value transactions need to be in one solid chain.

Refering to my document:

Domain transactions are similar to financial ones and exist because of them, because a
record verification is an action which requires payment to motivate the participants to process it.
Consequently, domain transactions as well as financial transactions will have commissions
associated with them.
It became clear from the BitDNS discussion and looking into NameCoin that we will need to
draw a line between domain and financial transactions. Processing each type of transactions is a
different activity with its own complexity and compensation.
Nevertheless, introducing an additional block sequence for domain transactions may bring
about problems with synchronizing the two block sequences together. Let me remind you here that
the financial block sequence is quasi-stable and a part of it can be rewritten by the system at any
time.

[pent]

Man, I wish I knew how to program so I could help you somehow.

Anyway, if you need something translated into portuguese or help to promote it I may be able to help you. Beyond that, I dunno.

Thanks. If you are able to promote, please do it It would be better if more people will examine this design.

[btc_artist]

Just finished reading the paper.  You have some very, very good ideas.  One thing I will mention, is I encourage you to carefully consider the benefits of merged mining with Bitcoin before discarding the idea.

Namespaces-- It might be a good idea to have namespaces and allow for sub-namespaces.  This way you could have one namespace per "service" (Tor, I2P, a new service in direct competition with ICANN addresses, etc), and then each service can have sub-namespaces which would be analogous with the TLDs we currently have with ICANN.

[matthewh3]

Just finished reading the paper.  You have some very, very good ideas.  One thing I will mention, is I encourage you to carefully consider the benefits of merged mining with Bitcoin before discarding the idea.

Namespaces-- It might be a good idea to have namespaces and allow for sub-namespaces.  This way you could have one namespace per "service" (Tor, I2P, a new service in direct competition with ICANN addresses, etc), and then each service can have sub-namespaces which would be analogous with the TLDs we currently have with ICANN.

I think mergerd mining with Litecoin CPU mining would be a better idea then your not competing against anyone for users as there is no merged mining for CPU mining yet.  So you would attract probally all or most Litecoin miners.

[marcus_of_augustus]

So a rebranded NameCoin ... why don't you just make available a patched NameCoin source-code with your perfect free-market fees formula in it and see if you can get the NameCoin network to adopt it naturally?

Your wiki says :

while DIANNA registration fee is defined by free market agreements

... but where in the design document do you describe this "free market agreements mechanism"?

(As noted this is your main point of difference to NameCoin.)

[thomkaufmann]

FYI, Steve from BitPay recently proposed a method for decentralizing the DNS using bitcoin's blockchain instead of an alt chain: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63540.0

[pent]

So a rebranded NameCoin ... why don't you just make available a patched NameCoin source-code with your perfect free-market fees formula in it and see if you can get the NameCoin network to adopt it naturally?

This design will actually destroy namecoin chain if applied. It is fundamentally different from namecoin. It is not NameCoin child, but NameCoin brother.

Your wiki says :

while DIANNA registration fee is defined by free market agreements

... but where in the design document do you describe this "free market agreements mechanism"?

(As noted this is your main point of difference to NameCoin.)

Please read my paper before be opposed. Both your questions are described there.

Domain transaction fee will be set by community like in later Bitcoin, when coinbase dropped to zero. Community will decide what lower and higher limit of fees are acceptable by network to get it live:

Also, this design addresses a crucial issue of setting an acceptable
commission for a domain transaction. It is established on a free market.

Free domain transactions (without linking TxC) are also possible, but their
duration will be depend on how altruistic the miners in the system are.
Transactions with unreasonably high commission are also possible. These
will bring about higher DDiff-s. In this case it will be up to the miners
themselves whether or not to include these transactions into a block,
depending on their hardware facilities. Perhaps such transactions will take a
long while to be completed, waiting while the general complexity reaches an
acceptable level.

All in all, compared to Bitcoin, this system will have a correcting factor
related to the computing difficulty. It will be proportionally tied to additional
financial activity regarding the domain transactions, and average domain
transaction commission as well. This latter value, in its turn, will be established
under free market conditions.

Domain transaction commissions will be returned to
proportionate bonuses for the additional processing undertaken.
minersn as It will be the free choice of the miners which will regulate the
proportionate nature of the additional complexity correction. The higher the
bonus, the higher the complexity – and the higher the risk to get nothing.

[pent]

udpated initial post and wiki with current open issues

[pent]

So we have two issues:
1. How to deal with Bitcoin overwhelming hash power
2. How to safely put a block inside distributed network

What if we try to kill both with one shot?

They summarize into one complex task. But the complex, difficult work - this is what network needs.

In addition to hashing work we will give miners a complex task to find a secure place for block inside our distributed network.

So they not only need to find a hash, but also they need to find a secure place in a huge network for solved block.

[phelix]

Having an alternate dns system is an important thing to secure bitcoins future against possible future dns shutdown attacks. even if its only to prevent these shutdowns from happening.

Why do you split forces and reinvent the wheel?

The only valid argument against namecoin is that domains are too cheap. and that is mostly because of the current lack of interest in the project. So just make marketing for namecoin or try to implement your fee algorithms to namecoin.

Namecoin works fine and is secure. I invite you to http://bitcoinX.bit

[pent]

Oh, pleeeeease...

I already said why i dont like namecoin implementation, scroll up, down and go through links. So big holes in design - this can not grow in something significant.

[matthewh3]

I think your find it difficult to find miners as a lot of people have already adopted merged mining on Bitcoin with Namecoin.  If you was to do merged mining with Litecoin CPU miners your not competing for new miners from anywhere and if you approach the Litecoin community and the major pools I'm sure there all be happy to merge your mining with theirs when your ready to start.  This will lower the chance of a 51% attack.

[ThomasV]

Actually, DIANNA operates like NameCoin, but:
- registration fee is returned to miners (not destroyed) and caused additional proportional difficulty overhead to be not free
- registration fee defined by free market agreements, not by system. System can only suggest its value at first stages like bitcoin tx fee
- coins are not used as a domain name carrier

I agree that this fixes namecoin weaknesses.
 - miners should get paid for the use of disk space induced by domain registration
 - how much they get should be fixed by market
 
However, I believe that the most sensible implementation would be to write domain registrations directly into the Bitcoin blockchain, not to define a new blockchain & currency. Once you realize that the value of coins should not be tied to domain names, the logical conclusion is that we do not need a new blockchain. The existing infrastructure provides enough security.

hum, did I say something Gavin does not want to hear?

[pent]

I agree that this fixes namecoin weaknesses.
 - miners should get paid for the use of disk space induced by domain registration
 - how much they get should be fixed by market
 
However, I believe that the most sensible implementation would be to write domain registrations directly into the Bitcoin blockchain, not to define a new blockchain & currency. Once you realize that the value of coins should not be tied to domain names, the logical conclusion is that we do not need a new blockchain. The existing infrastructure provides enough security.

hum, did I say something Gavin does not want to hear?

Why to overwhelm bitcoin block chain with possible terabytes of domain data? What did Satoshi said about this...

[ThomasV]

I agree that this fixes namecoin weaknesses.
 - miners should get paid for the use of disk space induced by domain registration
 - how much they get should be fixed by market
 
However, I believe that the most sensible implementation would be to write domain registrations directly into the Bitcoin blockchain, not to define a new blockchain & currency. Once you realize that the value of coins should not be tied to domain names, the logical conclusion is that we do not need a new blockchain. The existing infrastructure provides enough security.

hum, did I say something Gavin does not want to hear?

Why to overwhelm bitcoin block chain with possible terabytes of domain data? What did Satoshi said about this...

Satoshi does not own the blockchain. The existence of the blockchain, and the possibility to use it for secure storage of key-value pairs are just facts, and developers cannot do anything about it. Some miners could refuse non standard transactions, but others will be happy to take them.

The scalability of the Bitcoin block chain is a true question, and I think developers should focus on it; it is more important and more urgent than multisig contracts.
However, repeating over and over again "that spamming the blockchain is evil" will not fix things.

[pent]

If Bitcoin developers will put block chain somehow in somewhere like DHT and leave only block headers on clients, the dianna can be futher integrated into bitoin block chain. There will be no need for separate block chain.

The primary problem for now is the every client stores all network data locally. This excludes dianna-like systems from bitcoin chain.

Maybe we need to go by bitcoin distributed storage way?

[ThomasV]

If Bitcoin developers will put block chain somehow in somewhere like DHT and leave only block headers on clients, the dianna can be futher integrated into bitoin block chain. There will be no need for separate block chain.

The primary problem for now is the every client stores all network data locally. This excludes dianna-like systems from bitcoin chain.

This is not different. Every node of your dianna system will need to store all the blockchain locally.
Of course, users of your DNS system do not need the blockchain, they just need to talk to a server.
The same is true with Bitcoin and lightweight clients.

[phelix]

Oh, pleeeeease...

I already said why i dont like namecoin implementation, scroll up, down and go through links. So big holes in design - this can not grow in something significant.

I read through all that unstructured information but I find your arguments invalid.

0. Coins are destroyed Proof
1. NetworkFee descreasing for 50 to zero and will be zero in ~80000 block Proof and has no feedback with network activity like difficulty has.
2. Namecoin was designed for free domains and this is its future Proof
3. Developers have to do system intrusion from time to time to avoid collapse or spam hell Proof Proof

0.) so what?
1.) "
2.) "    Domains will never be free because of the price for name_new. Cheap domains were a design choice as Khal explained to you already (see links above).
3.) Your system will need some time to become as stable as namecoin is already today.

4.) Why not improve the current system? Pretty much seems possible.
5.) I repeat: everybody should pull on one string!

[pent]

0. Coins are destroyed Proof
1. NetworkFee descreasing for 50 to zero and will be zero in ~80000 block Proof and has no feedback with network activity like difficulty has.
2. Namecoin was designed for free domains and this is its future Proof
3. Developers have to do system intrusion from time to time to avoid collapse or spam hell Proof Proof

0.) so what?
1.) "
2.) "    Domains will never be free because of the price for name_new. Cheap domains were a design choice as Khal explained to you already (see links above).
3.) Your system will need some time to become as stable as namecoin is already today.

4.) Why not improve the current system? Pretty much seems possible.
5.) I repeat: everybody should pull on one string!

0. Its a crutch.

Verify domain transactions and verify financial transactions is a different work. Domain transactions can be quitely higher in volume than financial ones. The work for their verification is not paid. name_update is free. name_new fee has no feedback with network activity. System is unbalanced and going to put terabytes of free data on clients HDDs.

Well, if you plan to use this, go ahead.

To fix all problems above namecoin chain needs to be destroyed.

[P4man]

Why to overwhelm bitcoin block chain with possible terabytes of domain data? What did Satoshi said about this...

Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about

[pent]

Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about

This will be a big sync problem. Bitcoin chain is quasi-stable and some its part can be rewritten at any time. What to do in this case...

[P4man]

Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about

This will be a big sync problem. Bitcoin chain is quasi-stable and some its part can be rewritten at any time. What to do in this case...

Not sure I understand the problem, but having an external chain (bitcoin in this case) "approve" the dianna chain actually makes it much more flexible. At any point you could decide to switch to another vetting system, say when bitcoin withers away and litecoin becomes the next big thing.

Anyway, like I said, I have no clue what Im talking about, just airing some random thoughts that other people perhaps can turn in to usable ones .

[pent]

Anyway, like I said, I have no clue what Im talking about, just airing some random thoughts that other people perhaps can turn in to usable ones .

Thanks ) A brainstorm ideas are welcome

[phelix]

Why to overwhelm bitcoin block chain with possible terabytes of domain data? What did Satoshi said about this...

Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about

hey... you invented merged mining

[ThomasV]

Why to overwhelm bitcoin block chain with possible terabytes of domain data? What did Satoshi said about this...

Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about

hey... you invented merged mining

not exactly... but the idea is interesting

[phelix]

0. Coins are destroyed Proof
1. NetworkFee descreasing for 50 to zero and will be zero in ~80000 block Proof and has no feedback with network activity like difficulty has.
2. Namecoin was designed for free domains and this is its future Proof
3. Developers have to do system intrusion from time to time to avoid collapse or spam hell Proof Proof

0.) so what?
1.) "
2.) "    Domains will never be free because of the price for name_new. Cheap domains were a design choice as Khal explained to you already (see links above).
3.) Your system will need some time to become as stable as namecoin is already today.

4.) Why not improve the current system? Pretty much seems possible.
5.) I repeat: everybody should pull on one string!

0. Its a crutch.

[
6.) Verify domain transactions and verify financial transactions is a different work. Domain transactions can be quitely higher in volume than financial ones. The work for their verification is not paid. name_update is free.

7.) name_new fee has no feedback with network activity.

8.) System is unbalanced and going to put terabytes of free data on clients HDDs.

9.) Well, if you plan to use this, go ahead.

10.) To fix all problems above namecoin chain needs to be destroyed.



]

0.) namecoins being destroyed is not a problem. there is easily enough room for domains. also the limit can be easily raised or removed altogether.

6.) I agree, maybe this should be changed
7.) Might be nice if done right, don't see why it could not be added.
Also at the moment it is not the developers setting the fee but the majority of miners and users installing the client.
8.) I don't see it coming. There has been a dust attack recently but it was fixed within days.
9.) I am using it heavily already.
10.) why do you think so?

11.) There is room for improvement with Namecoin but what has been achieved so far is remarkable.

12.) Ease of use and userbase size are much more important now than problems that will occur ten years from now and can easily be solved.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about

Didn't you just describe merge mining.

The difference being w/ merge mining Bitcoin is optional (one can still direct mine also). 

[btc_artist]

I think your find it difficult to find miners as a lot of people have already adopted merged mining on Bitcoin with Namecoin.  If you was to do merged mining with Litecoin CPU miners your not competing for new miners from anywhere and if you approach the Litecoin community and the major pools I'm sure there all be happy to merge your mining with theirs when your ready to start.  This will lower the chance of a 51% attack.

You can merge-mine with more than 2 block chains.  There's no reason people who are merge mining Bitcoin and Namecoin currently can't add an additional chain. This was already done with Devcoin as well.  So as far as  mining goes, there's no competition with Namecoin.

[matthewh3]

Kk but it would seem more attractive to Litecoin CPU miners as there is no merged mining for that yet so all or most of the Litecoin CPU miners would likely adopt it pretty fast?

[Rassah]

Kk but it would seem more attractive to Litecoin CPU miners as there is no merged mining for that yet so all or most of the Litecoin CPU miners would likely adopt it pretty fast?

Unless Litecoin is abandoned because it gives absolutely nothing new other than mining without needing a GPU

[pent]

Notices about DHT.

DHT is a Distributed Hash Table. I.e. HASH=VALUE

Bitcoin chain is a hash table, i.e. HASH=VALUE.

I have no reasons to doubt putting full block chain in DHT, leaving metadata (headers) on client. Need to find good implementation first.

[Rassah]

Notices about DHT.

DHT is a Distributed Hash Table. I.e. HASH=VALUE

Bitcoin chain is a hash table, i.e. HASH=VALUE.

I have no reasons to doubt putting full block chain in DHT, leaving metadata (headers) on client. Need to find good implementation first.

You're not the only one I heard this idea from btw. I hope you succeed

[matthewh3]

Kk but it would seem more attractive to Litecoin CPU miners as there is no merged mining for that yet so all or most of the Litecoin CPU miners would likely adopt it pretty fast?

Unless Litecoin is abandoned because it gives absolutely nothing new other than mining without needing a GPU

I don't think Litecoin would be abandoned anytime before Bitcoin possibly was.  It gives all the Bitcoin miners an extra currency to mine for and the merged mining potential with that currency is currently untapped.

[btc_artist]

Kk but it would seem more attractive to Litecoin CPU miners as there is no merged mining for that yet so all or most of the Litecoin CPU miners would likely adopt it pretty fast?

Why would it be more attractive? If you and merge-mine 2 chains (BTC and NMC), you can merge-mine 5 or 10. I don't see the point.

[slush]

pent, reconsider merged mining support. I feel like you don't see the huge benefit of merged mining - security of whole system. It's not about "free money" (as namecoin/dianna should NOT act as money). When you don't allow merged mining, your system will be very fragile to 51% attack, because there are huge mining farms (>100Ghash) owned by single persons. By supporting merged mining, you can count with wide support from existing bitcoin community, which will make your system secure on "military grade" since it's start...

[pent]

pent, reconsider merged mining support. I feel like you don't see the huge benefit of merged mining - security of whole system. It's not about "free money" (as namecoin/dianna should NOT act as money). When you don't allow merged mining, your system will be very fragile to 51% attack, because there are huge mining farms (>100Ghash) owned by single persons. By supporting merged mining, you can count with wide support from existing bitcoin community, which will make your system secure on "military grade" since it's start...

This all needs to be work at first. MM is the second question.

Huge farms work on particular hashing alghorithm. If I change hashing and/or interface, there will be a problem for huge farms.

[slush]

Huge farms work on particular hashing alghorithm. If I change hashing and/or interface, there will be a problem for huge farms.

Well, I don't see a reason to change hashing algorithm right now, thus merged mining with bitcoin blockchain should be possible. I just hope you don't overengineer your system...

[pent]

Many people ask, how much domain will cost? Lets give a formula for people.

Okay. Lets give a name for DIANNA currency. It is DIAnna Coin: DIAC, diac, Diac.

The formula bellow follows the formula in document.

Let the difficulty overhead is (PDiff=DDiff/Diff=15%(0.15)) and it reflects the greedy of miners sociaty .
Let average number of domain operations is NumOp=10 per block.
Let the block reward is Bounty=50 diacs (DIAnna Coin), and average sum of financial fees per block is SumFee = 0.1 diac.

Then acceptable price per domain operation would be:





We got acceptable price per domain operation = 0.7515 diac

Actually, PDiff is a self-regulated by sociaty value, I gave it only initial value. 15% overhead is good enough to run.

Besides, if this system will fly - it will conclude a practical degree of human greedy in percents (PDiff). Maybe first in history.

[phelix]

0. Coins are destroyed Proof
1. NetworkFee descreasing for 50 to zero and will be zero in ~80000 block Proof and has no feedback with network activity like difficulty has.
2. Namecoin was designed for free domains and this is its future Proof
3. Developers have to do system intrusion from time to time to avoid collapse or spam hell Proof Proof

0.) so what?
1.) "
2.) "    Domains will never be free because of the price for name_new. Cheap dojimains were a design choice as Khal explained to you already (see links above).
3.) Your system will need some time to become as stable as namecoin is already today.

4.) Why not improve the current system? Pretty much seems possible.
5.) I repeat: everybody should pull on one string!

0. Its a crutch.

[
6.) Verify domain transactions and verify financial transactions is a different work. Domain transactions can be quitely higher in volume than financial ones. The work for their verification is not paid. name_update is free.

7.) name_new fee has no feedback with network activity.

8.) System is unbalanced and going to put terabytes of free data on clients HDDs.

9.) Well, if you plan to use this, go ahead.

10.) To fix all problems above namecoin chain needs to be destroyed.



]

0.) namecoins being destroyed is not a problem. there is easily enough room for domains. also the limit can be easily raised or removed altogether.

6.) I agree, maybe this should be changed
7.) Might be nice if done right, don't see why it could not be added.
Also at the moment it is not the developers setting the fee but the majority of miners and users installing the client.
8.) I don't see it coming. There has been a dust attack recently but it was fixed within days.
9.) I am using it heavily already.
10.) why do you think so?

11.) There is room for improvement with Namecoin but what has been achieved so far is remarkable.

12.) Ease of use and userbase size are much more important now than problems that will occur ten years from now and can easily be solved.

....

[btc_artist]

....

H?  I think your message got truncated.

[pent]

One more problem with this design. As suggested me in russian thread.

Mining pools can act in collusion to approve their own free domain transactions.

So. The 51% attack plust this one.

Need a way to get rid of mining pools existense in design.

Actually they are threat not only for dianna, but for bitcoin also. So much power in several hands is not good for all.

With mining pools I actually propose to take power away of several central Internet-orgs like IANA and ICANN and bring it to several pools (like Bitcoin did).

This is completely not right.

[Rassah]

Build it with distributed P2Pool mining built in?

[pent]

Why this is like that? Why bitcoin devs missed this crap? Mining pools are corruption possibility in system.

[Gavin Andresen]

Many people ask, how much domain will cost? Lets give a formula for people.

I really like your idea of scaling up difficulty based on the number of domain operations in a block to prevent the key:value database from growing arbitrarily big.

It seems to me that should be enough to make domain operation pricing correct; I don't see why there needs to be a block reward or fees, I assume the registrars will charge whatever they need to charge to make a profit, and I would strongly encourage you to avoid making the DNS system yet-another-currency.  I'd like to use dollars or euros or bitcoins (preferably bitcoins) to pay for my domain names, please.

I imagine a system something like:

+ I give some money to a registrar, and ask them to register/renew/transfer 'gavinandresen.dianna'

+ The registrar makes sure the register/renew/transfer operation is valid

+ The registrar bundles up a bunch of register/renew/transfer operations and then asks/pays a Bitcoin miner to merge-mine that hash to securely timestamp those changes

+ After they're timestamped, the registrar asks that all of those record changes be inserted into a shared distributed hash table, providing the DIANNA proof-of-work and the bitcoin block hash.

+ The nodes maintaining the shared DHT make sure the records have the right DIANNA proof-of-work, that the bitcoin block is valid, and that the changes aren't over-ridden by a later bitcoin block, and then update the records.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Build it with distributed P2Pool mining built in?

Bingo.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Many people ask, how much domain will cost? Lets give a formula for people.

I really like your idea of scaling up difficulty based on the number of domain operations in a block to prevent the key:value database from growing arbitrarily big.

It seems to me that should be enough to make domain operation pricing correct; I don't see why there needs to be a block reward or fees, I assume the registrars will charge whatever they need to charge to make a profit, and I would strongly encourage you to avoid making the DNS system yet-another-currency.  I'd like to use dollars or euros or bitcoins (preferably bitcoins) to pay for my domain names, please.

I imagine a system something like:

+ I give some money to a registrar, and ask them to register/renew/transfer 'gavinandresen.dianna'

+ The registrar makes sure the register/renew/transfer operation is valid

+ The registrar bundles up a bunch of register/renew/transfer operations and then asks/pays a Bitcoin miner to merge-mine that hash to securely timestamp those changes

+ After they're timestamped, the registrar asks that all of those record changes be inserted into a shared distributed hash table, providing the DIANNA proof-of-work and the bitcoin block hash.

+ The nodes maintaining the shared DHT make sure the records have the right DIANNA proof-of-work, that the bitcoin block is valid, and that the changes aren't over-ridden by a later bitcoin block, and then update the records.

Could you use a few different coins to add extra infallibility? Say Litecoin and bitcoin/namecoin. So you need all 3 working in unison or something.

Merged Timestamping :O

[HostFat]

Can this project merged somehow to the Yacy decentralized web search ?

[pent]

I imagine a system something like:

+ I give some money to a registrar, and ask them to register/renew/transfer 'gavinandresen.dianna'

+ The registrar makes sure the register/renew/transfer operation is valid

+ The registrar bundles up a bunch of register/renew/transfer operations and then asks/pays a Bitcoin miner to merge-mine that hash to securely timestamp those changes

+ After they're timestamped, the registrar asks that all of those record changes be inserted into a shared distributed hash table, providing the DIANNA proof-of-work and the bitcoin block hash.

+ The nodes maintaining the shared DHT make sure the records have the right DIANNA proof-of-work, that the bitcoin block is valid, and that the changes aren't over-ridden by a later bitcoin block, and then update the records.

Template break.

Looks very interesting.

The funds sent to registar needs to be marked "for domain gavinandresen.dianna", to make miners and storages sure they processed real transaction request. So the extra information needs to added to scriptsig. So dianna will have an influence on bitcoin chain size. Or am I missed something?

[pent]

+ I give some money to a registrar, and ask them to register/renew/transfer 'gavinandresen.dianna'

+ The registrar makes sure the register/renew/transfer operation is valid

+ The registrar bundles up a bunch of register/renew/transfer operations and then asks/pays a Bitcoin miner to merge-mine that hash to securely timestamp those changes

+ After they're timestamped, the registrar asks that all of those record changes be inserted into a shared distributed hash table, providing the DIANNA proof-of-work and the bitcoin block hash.

+ The nodes maintaining the shared DHT make sure the records have the right DIANNA proof-of-work, that the bitcoin block is valid, and that the changes aren't over-ridden by a later bitcoin block, and then update the records.

This is totally something new. My interpretation:

We will separate all participants by group:
1. Clients - they want domains
2. Mining pools - they do timestamping
3. Storage pools - they save the timestamped blocks
4. Need possible coordinators - registars. They take money from clients, pay part to miners for timestamping and pay part to storages for saving. And some part leave for themselfs.

The money will be any external financial structure: bitcoin or fiat - this is up to registars what to accept and how to pay to storage and miners pools. And not be an internal of system.

The DIANNA's block chain (to be stored at storage pools) is similar to bitcoin, but:
- Need to store only last TTL full blocks, all others are kept on each storage as headers. Since block with domains expires - system not need to know the full block, so block goes to history as its header.
- Instead of coin transactions there will be a domain transactions

The possible problem here is how to make consistent  block chain of last TTL block distributed by storage pools.

[rPman]

I do not understand why in the basis of a decentralized system, you are going to add a centralized registrar?
We also need to minimize number parasitic financial intermediaries between the DNS and the client.

We do not need a center, deciding whether we can register the domain or not. We need a reliable and simple tool for decentralized storage of information on domains and how they fair / free registration, with minimal protection against cybersquatters.

In the Russian branch of the discussion I invited to discuss the proposals on the mechanism of domain registration and renewal through a decentralized auction. Maybe this idea will continue here.

Of course, namecoin implemented very crudely, ideally it should be a small add-on to bitcoin (as a means to create a reliable database and decentralized means of payment).

Payment for registration and renewal should be charged for maintenance and storage system bitcoin DNS database.
The current system of domain registration, and so looks like an auction between the client and the registrar / cybersquatters and rule 'the first man gets the oyster, the second man gets the shell'. Auto Auction for domain name registration will allow to realize the same thing but without the unnecessary middlemen.

But there are problems arising from the fact that mining pools control the network.
* open registration will allow pools-cybersquatters immediately register the same domain with zero cost (can put any commission, yet also get itself if they do not give out the transaction in the network prior to placement in to the blockchain)
* closed registration will be is technically difficult to implement because you must consider mechanisms for the simultaneous recording of the same domain by different users ... still all rested in the fact that the mining pools have the ability to control the priority between clients.

In any case, all the problems arising from the existence of large pools of mining, and the decision can be ideas development p2pool.

p.s. sorry for my English.

[Gavin Andresen]

I do not understand why in the basis of a decentralized system, you are going to add a centralized registrar?

I should have made it clear:  I imagine there will be an arbitrary number of registrars. They will compete to provide the best service (fastest updates of the DNS database, lowest prices, etc).

If you were willing to do the proof-of-work and insert your own updates into the bitcoin block chain then you could be your own registrar (I assume most people won't be willing to setup the necessary software, run it, etc. just to register a couple of domain names).

[pent]

Gavin: Are you talking about putting extra data to bitcoin blockchain? Have a couple of questions, I am trying to figure out your picture.

+ The registrar makes sure the register/renew/transfer operation is valid

Is this correct? DIANNA has its own chain on DHT, domain double spend performed against this chain.

+ The registrar bundles up a bunch of register/renew/transfer operations and then asks/pays a Bitcoin miner to merge-mine that hash to securely timestamp those changes

What prevents miner to do this without registar?

+ After they're timestamped, the registrar asks that all of those record changes be inserted into a shared distributed hash table, providing the DIANNA proof-of-work and the bitcoin block hash.

Block hash of what block? Where client paid for domain, or where miner did merged mining?

+ The nodes maintaining the shared DHT make sure the records have the right DIANNA proof-of-work, that the bitcoin block is valid, and that the changes aren't over-ridden by a later bitcoin block, and then update the records.

What is the motivation of DHT nodes to maintain network?

[rPman]

I should have made it clear:  I imagine there will be an arbitrary number of registrars. They will compete to provide the best service (fastest updates of the DNS database, lowest prices, etc).

If you were willing to do the proof-of-work and insert your own updates into the bitcoin block chain then you could be your own registrar (I assume most people won't be willing to setup the necessary software, run it, etc. just to register a couple of domain names).

What about we are talking here? about 'decentralizing' or 'replacing owners of current DNS system'?

Anybody could be own registrar? Of course, that's is decentralizing, But do it free and zero cost without any restrictions? Under what conditions would create such a domain registrar, after all these rules and the need to develop!

We need conditions, that will protect DNS against cybersquatters, from unhindered registration of any number of domains based on keywords, that will protect the system from the uncontrolled transfer of domain control to third parties.

The best defense is when the only thing that can and should make 'own registrar' is to provide resources for the software, and all the logic and limitations are fully automated.

[pent]

I think i got it Gavin.

Registar = bitcoin mining pool for simple case.

Client sends X BTC to mining pool in a special marked transaction. He signs domain name with domain private key and put it to Script with following OP_DROP for exmple.

Then he goes to bitcoin pool, give it:
- initial transaction_id
- domain name
- domain public key
and asks to register a domain.

Pool gather such domains in a DIANNA block (performing validation and d/spend checks) and tries to find its hash with merged mining of parent bitcoin block. But with bitcoin block difficulty and difficulty correction in my formula.

After success, pool pushes DIANNA block in diana network.

Dianna network has all required data to check this block:
- It has referenced bitcoin transactions
- It has domain names and pubkeys to make sure those a signed by domain owner
- It has a hash of parent Bitcoin block, so it can see its difficulty and number of bounties
- So it can calculate a valid difficulty target to match dianna's block hash

So the grounds of putting domain in DIANNA's chain is the initial bitcoin payment. DIANNA will refuse domain transs without corresponding payemnts.

Abuse activity of mining pools here is not profitable. If pool will send initial transaction from his address to another his address, this anyway will increase the dianna's block difficulty.

In this scheme DIANNA isn't vulnerable to 51% attack, as its basic difficulty and hashing power will be taken from bitcoin.

Am I right?

[pent]

The Gavin's design above is just what I proposed in design, but money flow moved away to bitcoin.

This will enforce mining pool competition and cause more mining pools to appear.

Bitcoin and DIANNA will work for each other, enforcing both popularity and health.

DIANNA will not be a fork of Bitcoin, but an extension.

DIANNA's blocks frequency may be arbitrary and blocks will contain only needed information about domains.

This is freaking awesome idea.

[Gavin Andresen]

I think i got it Gavin.

Registar = bitcoin mining pool for simple case.

Yes

Client sends X BTC to mining pool in a special marked transaction. He signs domain name with domain private key and put it to Script with following OP_DROP for exmple.

Yes, you could do it that way, re-using Bitcoin's Script system for signatures.  I suppose it might be useful to require m-of-n signatures for a domain to be transferred to somebody else.  I wouldn't make them full-fledged Transactions, though (multiple "inputs" to a domain renewal or transfer doesn't really make sense, for example).

Then he goes to bitcoin pool, give it:
- initial transaction_id
- domain name
- domain public key
and asks to register a domain.

Pool gather such domains in a DIANNA block (performing validation and d/spend checks) and tries to find its hash with merged mining of parent bitcoin block. But with bitcoin block difficulty and difficulty correction in my formula.

After success, pool pushes DIANNA block in diana network.

Dianna network has all required data to check this block:
- It has referenced bitcoin transactions
- It has domain names and pubkeys to make sure those a signed by domain owner
- It has a hash of parent Bitcoin block, so it can see its difficulty and number of bounties
- So it can calculate a valid difficulty target to match dianna's block hash

So the grounds of putting domain in DIANNA's chain is the initial bitcoin payment. DIANNA will refuse domain transs without corresponding payemnts.

Abuse activity of mining pools here is not profitable. If pool will send initial transaction from his address to another his address, this anyway will increase the dianna's block difficulty.

In this scheme DIANNA isn't vulnerable to 51% attack, as its basic difficulty and hashing power will be taken from bitcoin.

Am I right?

Yes, I think that's right, although I was imagining that the DIANNA and bitcoin difficulties would be kept separate and not combined. Combining them is probably a better idea (if you find any blocks that satisfy the bitcoin difficulty but not the DIANNA+bitcoin difficulty you can still announce them on the bitcoin network and get the block reward).

RE: what is the incentive for maintaining the DHT:  the registrars/mining pools would, I think, be the primary maintainers of the DHT and their incentive to maintaining it is the registration fees that they charge.

I haven't thought deeply about possible attacks; if a DHT is used then you have to defend against Sybil attacks (you must have some way of checking to make sure the data you get from the DHT is valid, e.g. have the DHT nodes return a Merkle branch down to the data they're returning that you can verify hashes to the correct Merkle root).

[pent]

I haven't thought deeply about possible attacks; if a DHT is used then you have to defend against Sybil attacks (you must have some way of checking to make sure the data you get from the DHT is valid, e.g. have the DHT nodes return a Merkle branch down to the data they're returning that you can verify hashes to the correct Merkle root).

This must be a special DHT implementation. All DIANNA's clients are DHT participants. All of them have a full DIANNA block headers chain in local storage. So they probably will decide to save a block only if its hash matches local headers chain with some threshold for new blocks.

The "thin" clients (network listeneres) will contain headers chain also, so they can verify whether DHT returned valid data.

[rjk]

Would it be possible for all the modifications to the DIANNA chain be confirmed by the Bitcoin chain and associated mining power, without adding too much to the coinbase? The way I imagine it working is as follows:

All the DIANNA transactions are collected in a block and a hash taken of them, and then the hash is submitted as a standard transaction to the bitcoin blockchain for actual confirmation. If this won't work as a standard transaction, perhaps some of the unused Bitcoin scripts could be used instead. Graphically as follows:

Code:

                  ___                                                           ___
DIANNA Transaction   \                                       Bitcoin Transaction   \
DIANNA Transaction   | f                                     Bitcoin Transaction   |
DIANNA Transaction   | u                                     Bitcoin Transaction   |
DIANNA Transaction   | n                                     Bitcoin Transaction   |
DIANNA Transaction   | n >== Hash (SHA256? sure why not) ==> Bitcoin Transaction   | >=== Confirmations by miners ===> BLOCK
DIANNA Transaction   | e                                     Bitcoin Transaction   |
DIANNA Transaction___/ l                                     Bitcoin Transaction   |
                                                             Bitcoin Transaction___/

Unless I completely misunderstand how Bitcoin works, I imagine this is how you could combine the two.

[pent]

Unless I completely misunderstand how Bitcoin works, I imagine this is how you could combine the two.

DIANNA's blocks will be merged mined with bitcoin blocks. The AUX block will be DIANNA block, the PARENT block will be Bitcoin block. The DIANNA block will have reference to PARENT bitcoin block and checked against it. This will be enough i think. Also all transactions in DIANNA block will be refernced to bitcoin transactions.

[ptshamrock]

You guys make my day everyday ! really ! please just tell me where to point my soon to be 50ghash to secure the networks

yay i know this is absolutely useless words lol  but i couln`t resist ! i do understand about 20% waht u talk but i love it and try to geth to the higher percentages !

THUMBS UP!

[rjk]

Unless I completely misunderstand how Bitcoin works, I imagine this is how you could combine the two.

DIANNA's blocks will be merged mined with bitcoin blocks. The AUX block will be DIANNA block, the PARENT block will be Bitcoin block. The DIANNA block will have reference to PARENT bitcoin block and checked against it. This will be enough i think. Also all transactions in DIANNA block will be refernced to bitcoin transactions.

The way I was imagining it, there would be no separate mining for the DIANNA chain, and it wouldn't have any of its own coins or currency either. It would be "merged-mined" in the sense that Bitcoin blocks do all the work of confirming DIANNA transactions, but without the stupid hassle of more coins floating around (like namecoin). Is there some reason that this couldn't work?

Right now if you wanted to, you could solo-mine only namecoins, without mining bitcoins at the same time. I would hope to eliminate any mining as such on the DIANNA chain at all, and force all transactions to be confirmed by the Bitcoin network. DIANNA would maintain its own chain so as to keep the data out of Bitcoin's blocks.

Am I way off base here?

[pent]

The way I was imagining it, there would be no separate mining for the DIANNA chain, and it wouldn't have any of its own coins or currency either. It would be "merged-mined" in the sense that Bitcoin blocks do all the work of confirming DIANNA transactions, but without the stupid hassle of more coins floating around (like namecoin). Is there some reason that this couldn't work?

Right now if you wanted to, you could solo-mine only namecoins, without mining bitcoins at the same time. I would hope to eliminate any mining as such on the DIANNA chain at all, and force all transactions to be confirmed by the Bitcoin network. DIANNA would maintain its own chain so as to keep the data out of Bitcoin's blocks.

Am I way off base here?

Yes. No additional currency. All domain money will flow through Bitcoin increasing its popularity. No separate mining (even not possible). Bitcoin miners will just attach merged mining of DIANNA blocks and offer domain operations for clients increasing profit. All domain data will be kept in separate DIANNA chain which will be stored in DHT and can hold 100's ICANN databases.

[finway]

OK, I'll check it out.

[phelix]

From related russian thread :
 We are begging for your help  
 
 For our DIANNA experiments we need to figure out this :

                  How to measure ( mathematically that is) :
                            
            What is the relation between the change of mining difficulty
             and mathematical estimation of finding right block hash

Is this function exponential or not ?
And exact formula of course also needed if possible  

Thank you  
Sorry for my vague English.
                                        

looking for this?: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty#How_soon_might_I_expect_to_generate_a_block.3F

still think you should rather improve Namecoin

[pent]

From related russian thread :
 We are begging for your help  
 
 For our DIANNA experiments we need to figure out this :

                  How to measure ( mathematically that is) :
                           
            What is the relation between the change of mining difficulty
             and mathematical estimation of finding right block hash

Is this function exponential or not ?
And exact formula of course also needed if possible  

Thank you  
Sorry for my vague English.
                                        

Actually we need to find a correct formula of domain transaction fee to be not more or less than needed

[pent]

Thanks again for your help !

<<still think you should rather improve Namecoin>>
We can't improve NMC cuz of Namecoin is, so to say, private property of
Vinced to some degree.
He is good guy with its own ideas.
We are not capable to change his decisions and so be it.

Also we don't want to hardfork Namecoin.

Not true. Namecoin is opensource. We can't fork it because dianna's design went far away from namecoin design. We cant improve it, because we will destroy it by this improvement.

[phelix]

Thanks again for your help !

<<still think you should rather improve Namecoin>>
We can't improve NMC cuz of Namecoin is, so to say, private property of
Vinced to some degree.
He is good guy with its own ideas.
We are not capable to change his decisions and so be it.

Also we don't want to hardfork Namecoin.

Not true. Namecoin is opensource. We can't fork it because dianna's design went far away from namecoin design. We cant improve it, because we will destroy it by this improvement.

did you ever give a real explanation for that claim? I still don't see why it should not be possible to add dynamic fees to namecoin.

[pent]

did you ever give a real explanation for that claim? I still don't see why it should not be possible to add dynamic fees to namecoin.

NameCoin and any other fork always vulnerable to 51% attack.

Also, if you set correct dynamic fee, it will destroy namecoin, as it destroying it.

I see the acceptable domain price around icann values ~$10/year.

Are namecoin going to destroy all these money?

[pent]

did you ever give a real explanation for that claim? I still don't see why it should not be possible to add dynamic fees to namecoin.

Look, you are hotel owner.

I come to you a want to rent a room for night. How much? $100. Okay.

I giving you $100, you tearing this bond and giving me a key from room.

Good business, huh?

[phelix]

did you ever give a real explanation for that claim? I still don't see why it should not be possible to add dynamic fees to namecoin.

Look, you are hotel owner.

I come to you a want to rent a room for night. How much? $100. Okay.

I giving you $100, you tearing this bond and giving me a key from room.

Good business, huh?

The hotel owner is not a person but the network as a whole. the money destroyed is the fee payed for the domains.

destroying coins really is not a problem at all. new coins are being mined. limits could be raised - while at the moment despite all the destruction coins are still too cheap.

did you ever give a real explanation for that claim? I still don't see why it should not be possible to add dynamic fees to namecoin.

NameCoin and any other fork always vulnerable to 51% attack.

Also, if you set correct dynamic fee, it will destroy namecoin, as it destroying it.

I see the acceptable domain price around icann values ~$10/year.

Are namecoin going to destroy all these money?

NameCoin is not really vulnerable to a 51% attack. because of merged mining it is much much safer than all the other forks. From the difficulty I estimate the Namecoin hashrate to be 40% of the Bitcoin hashrate - that means not even deepbit could 51% attack it.
In my eyes it is the most secure cryptocurrency next to bitcoin - though being a currency is not a even particular goal.

edit 2012-02-24: oops, I got that one wrong - deepbit sure could run a successful 51% attack, but only deepbit. And I trust Tycho more than other pool operators.

I will only believe you can build a system as safe when I see it working.


imho the price of namecoins should be just so high that domain hoarding/squatting is prevented. actually the only reason for namecoins having a value is to do that and to guarantee mining.

if I could set a price it would be $1/year now and $5/year once it is established (=supported by mainstream dns servers)



Please understand I enjoy your interest and work for decentralized dns very much - it might even give some additional momentum to Namecoin.
The day might come when bitcoin will desperately need p2p dns. But I think you approach is wrong or at least the reasons you give don't make sense to me.

[pent]

The hotel owner is not a person but the network as a whole. the money destroyed is the fee payed for the domains.
destroying coins really is not a problem at all. new coins are being mined. limits could be raised - while at the moment despite all the destruction coins are still too cheap.

You remind me the words of Alan Greenspan: "US debt is not a problem, we always can print this money".

Well, I dont see the sense in continuing this debate if you dont understand that every work must be paid.

[marcus_of_augustus]

The hotel owner is not a person but the network as a whole. the money destroyed is the fee payed for the domains.
destroying coins really is not a problem at all. new coins are being mined. limits could be raised - while at the moment despite all the destruction coins are still too cheap.

You remind me the words of Alan Greenspan: "US debt is not a problem, we always can print this money".

Well, I dont see the sense in continuing this debate if you dont understand that every work must be paid.

I think you chose not to debate because your arguments are vague and full of holes. You have oft repeated this "going to destroy namecoin", but that is as good as the argument gets, that you have repeated it many times doesn't make it more or less truthful.

But each to its own and the proof of the pudding is always is in the eating ... let me know when DIANNA is ready for "stress testing", I'll go sharpen up some 'test' tools.

[pent]

All my arguments you already read and your answer was only "fuck off man, namecoin is fine".

To all NameCoin investors: I'll make you chance to stress test DIANNA. She is perfect. Don't worry. You are opposite to me, not me to you.

[marcus_of_augustus]

All my arguments you already read and your answer was only "fuck off man, namecoin is fine".

Your arguments consist of vaguely written documents and flow charts. Your amazing leap of logic is that burning a few coins for the name_firstupdate op will ZOMG! "destroy namecoin" (somehow, maybe) is ridiculous and, as yet, unsubstantiated in theory or practice.

And please do not put filthy words like that into my mouth, I never said anything like that.

[pent]

Really? Listen, eagle-owl, if you wanna say something by subject, go ahead.

[NASDAQEnema]

I can't get past the broken English, which may have something to do with the lack of nuance and communication.

[pent]

They really bored me

[LZ]

Easy, easy, man. Let's be more constructive.

[Rassah]

Just needs more vodka before Namecoin perestroika can begin.

[ptshamrock]

I think bopth sides ( if u want to call them this,,because they are rather on the same side) have a lot to contribute..

The comunicative problems here may arise from different angles of obeservation & diffrent lanuages , language skills etc.

Please dont let bekome nitpickers here !

I think the Problem here is u are all very very bright individuals doing very important work and sometimes it is not easy to communicate a vision ..but hey thats what the market of ideas is for..we`ll how it all endes..but please stop hindering all this producitve work done with fighting !

I love to read you guys !   and if we get 2 working p2p dns systems who cares   i will use both for different things ^^

Love each other !

[phelix]

namezcoin t'is broke! quickse dinana!   ZLOL  


sorry, I just had to...

[ptshamrock]

throwing cat pics at each other is at least very humorous ^^

[ptshamrock]

@ptshamrock

Sorry for outdated reply !
We thank you for your interest and especially for the pledge of hashing power for testing
of our network infrastructure.
I hope some day this Baby Di will become reality,
But we at the  the very beginning right now, a lot yet to be done.

thats not a pledge yet as i said soon to be 50ghash still takes some time ^^

[pent]

Enough trolling ))

So. We need a correct market price for domain transaction.

This price will be paid to miners and they will do the work on verification. So these money must have a ground in work. Otherwise there will be inflation, which is so scarried NameCoins, so they decided to destroy that money.

Where to get the correct correlation between paid money and corresponding work? This is built into bitcoin. Work is MHashes/sec, money is block reward.

As DIANNA is AUX'ed to bitcoin, its maximum block frequency will be bitcoin one, which will mean maximum network activity.

DIANNA's minimum block frequency would be zero, meaning minimum activity.

So the DIANNA announces: in this week PDiff is 10% (difficulty overhead).

All miners, when solving dianna block, must collect domain orders to match that PDiff.

If they have difficulties to collect so much orders, the dianna's block frequency will be lowered. So the dianna will announce lower PDiff on next week.

If they have overwhelming demand for domains, DIANNA's blocks will be appear more frequent. So DIANNA will announce higher PDiff on next week.

So the PDiff will set a required volume (in BTC) of domain operations per DIANNA block and it will be corrected according to network activity.

All of these money will be supplied by proportional miners work. No inflation, no speculation, no miners abuse activity.

[Rassah]

DIANNA will still have its own mining? I thought the new idea was that all mining will be done on Bitcoin only, with DIANNA just being a DHT block chain with each block verified by a hash in a Bitcoin block. So if someone wants to register a domain, they generate a hash that would include their domain registration, pay a miner or a mining pool a fee to mine a block that contains that hash, and once the Bitcoin block is mined, add a block to the DHT database with that block pointing to a Bitcoin block as proof of work. Market rates for domain registration will depend on how much pool operators want to charge to get custom signatures/hashes into blocks.
I guess that would still have problems with centralization and rates dropping to $0 though.

[pent]

No, mining DIANNA blocks would be exclusively merged mining against Bitcoin blocks and no independent mining.

Mining will be performed with Bitcoin current difficulty. Plus PDiff addition. This makes DIANNA immunable to 51% attack.

PDiff = Sum(domain fees) / (BitcoinBlockReward + Sum(Bitcoin TR fees)). Measured in %. Its reasonable value will be from 0.00....001% to approximately 15%.

PDiff will be hardcore set by DIANNA network depending on DIANNA's blocks appear frequency. High frequency = high PDiff. Low frequency = low PDiff.

DIANNA will require from miners to Sum(domain fees) must match PDiff.

So to solve a DIANNA's block, miners will have to match this formula:

Sum(domain fees) = PDIff * (BitcoinBlockReward + Sum(Bitcoin TR fees))

Any difference will cause additional difficulty penalty.

Free domain transactions will be declined.

[Luke-Jr]

If you guys haven't already, you might want to read my short post on how Namecoin might have been better from a few months ago.

I'm not really interested in the concept so much, so I did not read the 4 pages of prior discussion. If anything I say is redundant, please feel free to ignore it.

My comments on the wiki/main page:

• If the initial "block hashing algo" is defined in terms of merged-mining (and only merged mining - even if the "parent" is a minimal not-a-block), it's not intrusive; this was Satoshi's original recommendation before Bitcoin took off
• Merged mining does not in any way make the aux chains dependent on the parent chain.
• scrypt is an inferior proof-of-work than SHA256, as there is a large gap between commodity hardware (CPUs and GPUs) and specialized hardware (ASICs) in terms of performance

[pent]

If you guys haven't already, you might want to read my short post on how Namecoin might have been better from a few months ago.

I'm not really interested in the concept so much, so I did not read the 4 pages of prior discussion. If anything I say is redundant, please feel free to ignore it.

My comments on the wiki/main page:

• If the initial "block hashing algo" is defined in terms of merged-mining (and only merged mining - even if the "parent" is a minimal not-a-block), it's not intrusive; this was Satoshi's original recommendation before Bitcoin took off
• Merged mining does not in any way make the aux chains dependent on the parent chain.
• scrypt is an inferior proof-of-work than SHA256, as there is a large gap between commodity hardware (CPUs and GPUs) and specialized hardware (ASICs) in terms of performance

wiki and documents are outdated, since we have brain-stormed concept and made a very diffirent one. I'll publish new concept shortly.

DIANNA will be totally dependent on bitcoin chain, as it will use Bitcoin difficulty for hashing. And hashing will be standard sha256(sha256()), no tricks.

I see that what you are offering will destroy NameCoin itself. The conclusion from this is similar to my conclusion. It is better to write it from blank.

[pent]

If you guys haven't already, you might want to read my short post on how Namecoin might have been better from a few months ago.

If I correctly understand, you offer:
* Move namecoin blockchain (with possible terabytes of data) to bitcoin chain
* Bitcoins are used as carrier for domains (still)
* NameCoin is still oriented to serve centralized IP networks (NS??)
* Price is not defined

Who get the price for domain operation?

[phelix]

If you guys haven't already, you might want to read my short post on how Namecoin might have been better from a few months ago.

If I correctly understand, you offer:
* Move namecoin blockchain (with possible terabytes of data) to bitcoin chain
* Bitcoins are used as carrier for domains (still)
* NameCoin is still oriented to serve centralized IP networks (NS??)
* Price is not defined

Who get the price for domain operation?

you can use the bitcoin blockchain height as "time". then you can set the price depending on the number of registrations (updates) per bitcoin block.

e.g.:
100 domains per last 1000 blocks --> 0.1btc
1000 domains per last 1000 blocks --> 1btc

I would try a simple iir filter first.


Still you have to hard code the ratio for the domain price.

If the bitcoin price rises by a factor of 100 the system might break.

The floating Namecoin value solves these problems elegantly... 

[Bigpiggy01]

Pent and Gavin,

This is a bloody brilliant concept especially with the directions it's headed in now. This would be an incredible addon for bitcoin as it'd fix a lot of the issues that I and about 2 billion other internet users have to deal with on an everyday basis.

I can do bugger all on coding etc but like Psy offered if you want anything translated into Danish, German or Chinese I'd be more than happy to help out.

What's really needed for either Dianna or Namecoin to succeed is simplification to the point where a workable solution comes in the form of some of the tor browser/im packages available on the torproject pages. Then we'd have a truly liberating solution for the billions of internet users who get stepped on every day.

The potential this has for strengthening both the bitcoin project and a free internet are absolutely amazing as it kills two birds with one stone instead of people having to deal with A coin, B coin... etc adnauseum this provides peeps with p2p transactions and uncensored internet at the same time. Atm the average internet user doesn't really have anything near the skill level needed to make use of namecoin (imo. the one disappointing factor about the namecoin project) please bear that in mind when working on this.

[pent]

I am totally for move finances to Bitcoin and do not make one more FooBarCoin.

All domains will be paid in bitcoins, every payment will be based on hard work to prevent abuse activity.

TOR and I2P will have DIANNA as their crypto-dns with human readable names. This is the DIANNA objective.

Another objective: hold and manage terabytes of authoritative records.

[phelix]

I am totally for move finances to Bitcoin and do not make one more FooBarCoin.

All domains will be paid in bitcoins, every payment will be based on hard work to prevent abuse activity.

[...]

what will you do if the bitcoin price rises by a factor of 100? your domains will cost 100 times what they did before.

[pent]

This is all regulated by system. Demand will drop, pdiff will drop, prices in btc also drop.

[Gavin Andresen]

what will you do if the bitcoin price rises by a factor of 100? your domains will cost 100 times what they did before.

I think you might be conflating two costs:

Cost #1 is the cost to get a bunch of domain transactions accepted.

I believe pent's proposal is based on additional difficulty, which will be independent of the bitcoin price.

In other words, if bitcoin difficulty is 100, then maybe you need to solve a difficulty 110 block to get your additional DIANNA data accepted by the other DIANNA nodes who are maintaining the key:value database.

If bitcoin difficulty rises to 1 million, then you need to solve a difficulty 1-million-and-ten block to get your data accepted.

The additional difficulty factor should be set by the DIANNA nodes based on their ability to process/store data. More thinking is needed about what that function looks like (it reminds me of the bitcoin fee algorithm; it's trying to solve a similar problem, preventing spam/abuse but allowing as many transactions as possible for the lowest possible price).

Then there's a completely separate Cost #2, which will be higher than cost #1, that is the payment that miners (aka registrars) will charge to handle domain transactions (and do the work of bundling them up, creating some sort of summary hash, and getting that hash into the bitcoin block chain).  That's just a free market.


(I'm completely ignoring Cost #3, which is the "what if I want to purchase an existing domain" price, and is whatever the owner is willing to sell it for.)

[Bigpiggy01]

All domains will be paid in bitcoins, every payment will be based on hard work to prevent abuse activity.

Unless I'm really wrong somewhere the idea here is to have this dynamically priced meaning miners accept the extra work @ whatever they'll accept the extra work @. Making btc/fiat relatively irrelevant as pool ops will adjust their acceptance price along with market price.

That'll basically provide a friggin awesome all in one solution 

[TheLittleDuke]

Just read the white paper, and I understand there's been more thought/work since it was published, but I didn't really see what were the fatal flaws in the Namecoin implementation?

I mean it's obvious that the current effort/output has been sub-par -- I mean how lazy is it to not even bother renaming the configuration file (its called bitcoin.conf in the .namecoin subdir) ?!?!

And yes some of the browser plugins aren't quite ready for prime time AND the world needs more peering nodes to translate the .bit requests into something usable.  I would think that a plugin bundled with the TOR client would be a no brainer?

So I gotta ask, what problem is this going to solve that fixing/enhancing the Namecoin implementation(s) can't/won't?

[Rassah]

From what I understand, Namecoin
requires its own mining,
its own blockchain that stores both Namecoin transactions and domain registrations/configurations,
requires miners, registrars, and those who with to run a DNS server as home to store the entire copy of the huge blockchain
does not have a method of setting a market rate for domain activities,
requires an exchange rate between Namecoin and Bitcoin,
and I think is limited to .bit domains.

The new idea
leaves all the mining to Bitcoin only, so the block chain will only store DNS changes, making it much smaller than Namecoin's,
the database will be distributed using DHT instead of relying on centralized DNS servers or having to store the whole blockchain locally,
does not need its own currency, so domain purchases can be made with any currency (though most likely with Bitcoin)
does not need its own currency exchanges
registrations for domains are up to whatever prices Bitcoin miners want to charge, so are open to the market,
and will be open to register any type of domains, including Tor and I2P ones.

Hope I got everything right

[pent]

Right, but namecoin not limited to .bit, but it is its primary objective - decentralized system maintains centralized network. Mess.

But main problem is not in this. The main problem is the price of domain operation. NameCoin has an arbitrary formula of that, taken from the sky, and they just destroy that money to be completely correct.

I don't think this is right. I think the work of verification domain transaction MUST be paid. Some people dont think such.

And this is the main drama of holy war. And that is why DIANNA was designed.

[Rassah]

It's ironic that my skills are all about finances, which is what Bitcoin and these systems are all about, but my programming skills were abandoned ten years ago, which is what is required to actually get any of this done. It's great to watch these ideas and contribute my own, but I feel so useless without being able to code. Still, I hope I can help, because I really like this project.

[pent]

We are live in capitalism society. Every work must be paid and every payment must have a ground in work. All other - the way to inflation or collapse.(I don't go deep to credit organizations).

It is obvious I think. And this is strange that russian, soviet man reminds that truth to English speakers.

[Rassah]

We are live in capitalism society. Every work must be paid and every payment must have a ground in work. All other - the way to inflation or collapse.(I don't go deep to credit organizations).

It is obvious I think. And this is strange that russian, soviet man reminds that truth to English speakers.

I am Soviet, too, comrade. И тoжe гoвopю пo pyccки.

[thomkaufmann]

Does anyone know if this implementation would be compatible with the cjdns network?
https://wiki.projectmeshnet.org/CJDNS

[thomkaufmann]

I was just chatting with the main developer, cjd, in his IRC channel and I introduced him to this thread. He is very familiar with bitcoin and namecoin but his biggest concern is that there would be even less incentive to produce websites in an experimental network if people had to pay for domain names. But he believes he came up with a solution:

00:51   cjd   I have a solution to making domains effectively free w/o risk of long forks
00:52   cjd   a fork can be resolved by merging domains in the fork with domains in the main chain
00:53   cjd   and the root of the domain chain must be in a bitcoin transaction hash
00:53   cjd   but until it gest big, no money need be wasted
00:53   cjd   so the only cost is the fee
01:03   cjd   well, you can tell the dianna devs about this channel since I have a few questions for them and I imagine they have a few problems which I have possible solutions for.
01:03   cjd   I have been working on this problem for almost a year.
01:04   cjd   cjdns, in it's current form, is a routing engine.
01:04   cjd   It solves a number of problems with routing protocols but it does not approach naming.

This stuff is over my head so I can't have a real conversation about it but you can reach him here: https://wiki.projectmeshnet.org/IRC

[pent]

Thanks for all trying to help.

I see CJDNS is an alternative network like TOR and I2P and they also hit head in the wall to make P2P DNS system and they have no ready solution. I'll check it out.

Rassah: I didnt mean you, but people saying "namecoin is fine".

[pent]

I thought this conversation with cjd will help to clear most things.

The cjd's concept also has several light ideas i'm thinking on.

[15:16] <cjd> pentarh: Thanks for stopping by, I have a few questions about how dianna handles the authority stuff.
[15:17] <cjd> I was trying to read the paper but it had lots of stuff which I know and it was hard to pick out the parts which I don't get.
[15:17] <pentarh> wel, let me excuse for any bad english at first
[15:17] <cjd> nps
[15:17] <pentarh> the paper is atually outdated
[15:18] * cjd knows that feeling
[15:18] <pentarh> we have brainstormed this idea and went too far from initial one
[15:18] <cjd> I gather you resolve long forks just by making it expensive to fork the chain, same idea as bitcoin.
[15:19] <pentarh> The first point. Bitcoin provides pretty good way to main authoritative transactions
[15:19] <cjd> mhm
[15:19] <pentarh> so at first i thought to fork bitcoin
[15:19] <cjd> ...which is a pain..
[15:20] <pentarh> and make there a new transactions where domains (strings) will be instead of coins (integers)
[15:20] <cjd> which spams the bitcoin chain but does work
[15:20] <cjd> also it precludes easy & provable lookups
[15:21] <pentarh> No, I thought to create alternate chain https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains
[15:21] <cjd> yeap
[15:21] <pentarh> But the main pain of all forks is the 51% attack
[15:21] <cjd> yeap
[15:21] <cjd> the long fork attack
[15:22] <cjd> my first idea was a chain of trees and the root hash of each hash tree would be included in a bitcoin transaction
[15:22] <pentarh> The initial design was the idea to create alternate currency, like namecoin, to motivate people maintain network
[15:23] <cjd> yeah and that is full of problems as I'm sure you know
[15:23] <pentarh> but Gavin suggested ne to move financial chain to bitcoin
[15:23] <pentarh> and leave domain data in alternate chain
[15:24] <pentarh> alternate block will be merge-mined against bitcoin parent blocks and against bitcoin difficulty
[15:24] <cjd> ic
[15:24] <pentarh> this makes dianna resitant to 51% attack
[15:24] <pentarh> as long as bitcoin is
[15:25] <cjd> and people will merge mine because they want to get the btc from "registering" domains
[15:25] <cjd> how do you do untrusted lookups?
[15:26] <cjd> one big problem w/ namecoin is you either have the whole chain or you "just trust me"
[15:26] <pentarh> every dianna client will have a dianna block headers chain in local storage. It is short in size enough to put on every client
[15:26] <cjd> k
[15:27] <pentarh> the actual block data i plan to store in DHT
[15:27] <cjd> yeah or anywhere
[15:27] <pentarh> HASH=BLOCK DATA
[15:27] <pentarh> so
[15:28] <cjd> so every diana block will have a hash tree with every domain in existance
[15:28] <pentarh> the headers contain a block merkle root. the client can ask external storage to return him merkle branch of needed domain transaction
[15:28] <cjd> yeah
[15:28] <pentarh> in this way he can easily verify where external storage returned valid data
[15:28] <cjd> yeap
[15:29] <cjd> I wrote about how to implement this, and how to avoid needing the entire database in order to validate a change to it
[15:29] <cjd> http://ezcrypt.it/LL4n#HzmTvH1pi0G8JtcOTz3xFplq
[15:30] <pentarh> thanks, need some time to read
[15:30] <cjd> so we have authority and resolving but the stumbling blocks are in getting people to merge mine
[15:30] <cjd> and in the fact that nobody wants to pay to be an experimenter
[15:31] <pentarh> the price is adjusted to network popularity, so in first stages it will be very low
[15:31] <pentarh> in dianna
[15:31] <cjd> hmm
[15:31] <cjd> that is dangerous stuff
[15:32] <cjd> the smarter you make the governer, the more catistrophically it will fail if it does
[15:32] <pentarh> actually not the price itself
[15:33] <cjd> now the problem I have is we have somewhere between 50 and 100 active nodes experimenting with cjdns
[15:33] <pentarh> price is defined on hardcore tricks to hardcore connect paid money with doing hash work
[15:33] <cjd> and they have crypto derived ipv6 addresses
[15:33] <cjd> (so their addresses suck)
[15:33] <cjd> but nobody is going to adopt something where they have to pay (anything)
[15:34] <s1w> thats a problem ?
[15:34] <cjd> it's a problem for any proposal which requires paying
[15:34] <s1w> heh
[15:35] <cjd> I have maybe 2/3 of a solution in mind but mine is incomplete and there are some lingering problems.
[15:35] <s1w> as are most things
[15:35] <cjd> I'll let you read my document if you like then we can continue.
[16:02] <pentarh> cjd, what is the root if your single merkle tree? tx hash or block hash?
[16:05] <cjd> in that document, the merkle tree would be made of transaction output hashes and the root would have to be placed in the merged mining tree
[16:05] <cjd> kk: nope.. heros wanted
[16:06] <cjd> pentarh: for dns, my thinking was that someone would pay btc to the root of the merkle tree as if it were a key hash.
[16:07] <pentarh> please explain. I want to create some domain in this system. What the process will be?
[16:07] <pentarh> I pay btc to miner and he creates a merkle root with a branch of my domain
[16:08] <cjd> the thinking was if you wanted to add domains, you would recompute the hash tree with the new domains and pay to that root hash as if it were a bitcoin address.
[16:08] <cjd> no need to involve the miners at all, and using only standard transactions
[16:10] <cjd> pentarh: each hash tree would include the hash of the last hashtree so they would function as a chain.
[16:10] <cjd> pentarh: the obvious problem with what I just described is that someone can create a fork by just paying a little more and creating different domains.
[16:11] <cjd> and since there's no way to know that it has forked, they can reveal the fork a year after it is created thus throwing a huge number of domains into dispute
[16:13] <cjd> so idea #2 was to resolve forks by merging the domains from each branch together. This is much nicer since it behaves like namecoin but one can add an arbitrary number of domains with only a single transaction spamming the chain.
[16:14] <pentarh> Well, this is interesting. Can I tell what I propose?
[16:14] <cjd> sure
[16:14] <cjd> the problem with #2 is that there is no effective way to prove that a domain is valid since anyone can add one later on.
[16:18] <pentarh> I propose to create alternate chain as i described above. The transactions will have input as reference to prev key=value and output key with new value. If there is no input, this assumes a new domain creation. The normal Satoshi pend checks are applied, except that system will forget about prev output if it was TTL blocks ago.
[16:18] <cjd> ic
[16:18] <pentarh> The reason of putting a new transaction in alternate chain is bitcoin transaction to miner
[16:19] <pentarh> and nothing else
[16:19] <cjd> your end has to get miners on board
[16:19] <cjd> which is not insurmountable but it's an issue
[16:19] <pentarh> yes, providing them some extra profit for corresponding extra work
[16:20] <cjd> yes, the other matter is that early on, the cost needs to be basicly 0 in order to get people to use it
[16:21] <pentarh> miner gather domain transactions to a dianna block. every domain trans has a ref to bitcoin trans. So dianna will know how much money was piad for all transactions in block.
[16:21] <pentarh> So it adds a proportional difficulty
[16:22] <pentarh> I call it PDiff. PDiff=sum(domain_tr_fees)/(Bitcoin_block_reward + bitcoin_block_fees)
[16:23] <cjd> ok and you'll make everyone have the whole history of headers so any domain lookup can be proven...
[16:23] <pentarh> Miner will merge-mine dianna block with bitcoin difficulty + PDiff addition
[16:23] <cjd> it sounds workable
[16:24] <pentarh> the main rule is the any paid money must be worked
[16:24] <cjd> "must be worked"??
[16:25] <pentarh> must have a ground in work
[16:26] <cjd> how do you prevent a miner from creating thousands and thousands of domains by "paying himself" ?
[16:26] <pentarh> So if miner going to get a profit of 10 BTC in dianna block, and this bitcoin bounty is 50 BTC, he must mine with 10/50 = 25% difficulty addition
[16:26] <cjd> oic
[16:27] <pentarh> paying himself is the next problem, which resolution I try to tell you
[16:34] <cjd> that all makes a lot of sense and I hope you can get it to work
[16:34] <pentarh> So. The DIANNA will announce: In this "week" (week is in blocks) the PDiff is 10%. This means hardcore set of single block domain money turover as a percetile of bitoin block turnover. Miner will have to collect domain orders exactly to this amount. Any difference will cause exponental difficulty grow
[16:35] <cjd> ahh ic
[16:35] <cjd> this deserves an RFC
[16:36] <pentarh> If miners are hard to collect such more orders, the dianna blocks appear frequency will go down. In this case dianna will announce on next week lower PDiff
[16:36] <cjd> because programmers need a dense set of rules and none of the layman's terms and discussion
[16:37] <cjd> will clients need to hold the chain of diana headers or the chain of bitcoin headers?
[16:38] <cjd> hmm I guess you couldn't have them hold the bitcoin headers
[16:38] <pentarh> And visa versa. If miners are easily collect order on that PDiff, the dianna block frequency will rushed to bitcoin block frequency. So dianna will set higher pdiff in next week
[16:38] <cjd> it would be nice since that header chain could be used for other notery type stuff
[16:39] <pentarh> yes, this will cause to hold both headers chain
[16:39] <cjd> I like it. The governer stuff sounds really complex and you have to be prefect on it
[16:40] <pentarh> and this is what version we stopped in
[16:41] <cjd> would be so much easier if the cost was fixed
[16:41] <cjd> not better, just easier to implement
[16:42] <pentarh> The price must not be fixed
[16:42] <cjd> /nod
[16:42] <pentarh> if I set it to 1 btc, and tomorow usd/btc will be 1000, this will be a problem
[16:42] <cjd> indeed
[16:43] <cjd> set to X times the average transaction fee in the last 10 blocks ?
[16:43] <cjd> anything that can be done to avoid the hard work
[16:44] <pentarh> someone can spam system with low transactions to turn it into free data storage
[16:44] <cjd> hmm /mod
[16:45] <pentarh> the only way to know the price is to know how much work is doing for certain money turnover. And this value is bitcoin difficulty per block reward
[16:45] <cjd> oic
[16:46] <pentarh> So I connect the price only to work. And market will decide how much it really costs
[16:46] <cjd> that makes a lot of sense
[16:46] <cjd> equivilent btc to k hashes
[16:47] <cjd> *K
[16:48] <cjd> the biggest problem that I see is the miners
[16:48] <pentarh> yes, but this all in percetiles. so system can adopt to rising power like bitcoin does
[16:48] <pentarh> what with miners?
[16:49] <pentarh> I see they will have a reason to consolidate
[16:49] <cjd> why should minerX mine these where they don't make anything off them unless they put in more work
[16:49] <cjd> when he can mine namecoin and sell it
[16:50] <pentarh> Payment for domain transaction goes directly to miner address
[16:50] <pentarh> He could send this payment by itself, but still have a difficulty overhead
[16:51] <cjd> doesn't the additional difficuly make it impossible for him to make a profit by merging?
[16:52] <pentarh> i didn't understand
[16:52] <cjd> hmm I probably didn't understand it right...
[16:53] <cjd> I thought the prevention against miners paying themselves was to make it so they needed to mine higher difficulty blocks in order to do merged mining.
[16:53] <pentarh> client will send to miner a special transaction with domain name signed by domain key, followed by OP_DROP and then normal bitcoin script
[16:53] <cjd> hmm clever
[16:53] <pentarh> so transaction is marked as " for foobar domain"
[16:54] <pentarh> The miner can pay to himself like that
[16:54] <pentarh> and order a own domain
[16:54] <pentarh> then he will have to do just extra work
[16:55] <pentarh> So the difficulty overhead and associated electricity spends will be a prime cost of domain
[16:55] <cjd> I don't quite understand how the extra work works.. It's extra work on the dianna chain and not the bitcoin chain?
[16:56] <pentarh> dianna blocks are merge-mined with bitcoin blocks. They are mined agains parent block difficulty, dianna does not have own difficulty
[16:57] <pentarh> but it has own difficulty correction
[16:58] <cjd> hrm so in order for a miner to include transactions, he will have to mine bitcoin blocks at higher difficulty than the bitcoin swarm mandates?
[16:58] <pentarh> Miners will mine dianna blocks with BitcoinDifficulty * (1 + Pdiff) in simple case
[16:59] <pentarh> yes, the dianna blocks difficulty will be always a bit higher
[16:59] <pentarh> and dianna will set this "bit" according to its activity
[16:59] <cjd> if a miner is mining at higher difficulty, doesn't this mean a miner who is merged will need to discard otherwise valid bitcoin blocks?
[17:01] <pentarh> Yes, this will control miners greedy
[17:01] <pentarh> because they have a chance to discard valid bitcoin block
[17:02] <pentarh> if pdiff is too high
[17:02] <cjd> well wouldn't they still be able to submit it as a non-merged-bitcoin block?
[17:02] <pentarh> noway. parent bitcoin block hash must be included in dianna block
[17:03] <pentarh> this makes totally shared network power
[17:03] <cjd> nah, I mean if they discover a bitcoin block which is not high enough difficulty for a diana block, they will just submit it as a normal bitcoin block
[17:04] <cjd> *pretend that they don't mine dianna
[17:04] <pentarh> no and yes
[17:04] <pentarh> BitcoinDifficulty * (1 + Pdiff) is the dianna block difficulty
[17:04] <cjd> /nod
[17:04] <pentarh> BitcoinDifficulty remains as is
[17:05] <cjd> I think the biggest problem here is that it requires miners to participate
[17:06] <pentarh> So if miner found a bitcoin block with correct difficulty and still didnt found dianna block. he will have a choice - to submit bitcoin block and continue dianna with new one, or waste some more time to find dianna hash
[17:07] <cjd> time is money for bitcoin miners
[17:07] <cjd> they go to great lengths to catapult their blocks out as fast as possible
[17:07] <pentarh> well, yes, he will continue dianna block with next bitcoin one
[17:08] <cjd> and unfortunately the experimenters and nerds seem to be being overrun by oppertunists and scummy people in the bitcoin community.
[17:08] <pentarh> this will lower dianna frequency and dianna will set lower pdiff
[17:08] <ircerr> can Pdiff be a fraction?
[17:08] <cjd> yeah
[17:08] <cjd> which means that unless the miner gets $$ in pocket, they are unlikely to mine
[17:09] <cjd> esp. if they make money mining namecoin
[17:09] <cjd> who would want to upset that racket
[17:09] <pentarh> namecoin is a dead body
[17:09] <pentarh> from birth
[17:09] <cjd> yeap
[17:10] <cjd> but miners will still mine them because they can sell them
[17:10] <cjd> and way too many people in the bitcoin community would sell their grandmother for a block
[17:11] <pentarh> I asked enough questions in public to make investors doubt where they invest their money
[17:11] <pentarh> buying namecoins
[17:11] <cjd> /nod
[17:11] <cjd> people buy SC2
[17:11] <cjd> people are dumb
[17:23] <pentarh> dumb people will by forks currency while they not realized that only one have a right to live - bitcoin
[17:23] <pentarh> bitcoin probably
[17:24] <pentarh> but only one. All others will have a possibility of 51% attack

[phelix]

Right, but namecoin not limited to .bit, but it is its primary objective - decentralized system maintains centralized network. Mess.

But main problem is not in this. The main problem is the price of domain operation. NameCoin has an arbitrary formula of that, taken from the sky, and they just destroy that money to be completely correct.

I don't think this is right. I think the work of verification domain transaction MUST be paid. Some people dont think such.

And this is the main drama of holy war. And that is why DIANNA was designed.

Right, but namecoin not limited to .bit

thanks for pointing that out.

[...] but it is its primary objective - decentralized system maintains centralized network. Mess.

fud. you can run a client locally and be completely independent from dns.

I agree that though the namecoin data is far smaller than bitcoin data and will probably grow less in the future it would be nice to have a smaller footprint (currently ~500MB on the hd).

The advantage to use the current os dns system is in the possibility of easy adaption - small os config change and it works.

But main problem is not in this. The main problem is the price of domain operation. NameCoin has an arbitrary formula of that, taken from the sky, and they just destroy that money to be completely correct.

I don't think this is right. I think the work of verification domain transaction MUST be paid. Some people dont think such.

fud. by now there is no formula at work any more - fixed price of 0.01 NMC for name_new and name_firstupdate + transaction fees.
I repeat: a small amount of NMC being destroyed is not a problem. Without a change about 1,000,000,000 domains can be sustained and the limits can easily be lifted. For comparison: there are ~<~300,000,000 normal domains registered in the world. Namecoin is now at 43,000.

what you seem to be missing:
The transaction fees for name_new, name_firstupdate and name_update are set by the users and accepted or not by the miners. just like bitcoin. if bitcoin works, namecoin should too.

And this is the main drama of holy war. And that is why DIANNA was designed.

And this is why your arguments against Namecoin are mostly invalid.

The more alternatives the better. But please stop spreading FUD about Namecoin.

[HostFat]

I don't know if this can be useful in some ways, but I link this:
http://netsukuku.freaknet.org
I hope that you can find some good ideas for your project

[pent]

I don't know if this can be useful in some ways, but I link this:
http://netsukuku.freaknet.org
I hope that you can find some good ideas for your project

Thanks. Actually this: netsukuku.freaknet.org/doc/main_doc/andna.pdf

They have ANDNA p2p name system which is not athoritative.

But have a couple of ideas of healthy redunancy.

[pent]

Updated new Design overview on wiki, please follow:

http://dianna-project.org/wiki/Design_Overview

[marcus_of_augustus]

Updated new Design overview on wiki, please follow:

http://dianna-project.org/wiki/Design_Overview

I'll just note there are exactly 3 real references to numbers in the entire design document ....

DIANNA resistant against 51% Attack as long as Bitcoin network is resistant.

Merge-mining will bring to miners some additional profit (0,0001 ... 15% of Bitcoin block reward - depending on network activity) for doing proportional work.

So, 1 byte can contain 256 different name spaces.

.... just wondering what experience in network systems design makes you think you got this all covered champ?

(hint: vinced and satoshi have the same m.o.)

[pent]

This is a reasonable question.

I am unix system administrator and build, manage and scale alexa top-500 high-load projects for a 6 years. I know something about something really big. Large cluster systems and distributed storages are my favorites.

But anyway, I just make a proposal and community decides whether it has any futher fate.

If you say, Satoshi has the same mo, why just he don't point me where I am wrong, where is the bottleneck? I don't think he masured people on "Who are you to offer this?". Clever man looks on the offer itself. I think Satoshi is clever. And i will be happy to read his comments. Link to my PGP key is attached to first message in topic.

[pent]

Block chain in 3D idea.

System will maintain a various namespaces: from small (cjdns zone) to medium (.dia.i2p) and possibly extra large(ICANN .com zone).

So why cjd clients will have to listen changes in i2p or icann namespaces? Why such small network will have a domain price corresponding to icann zone activity?

Let the block chain would be block tree! Each branch will represent particular namespace, and all of them will grow from genesis block with namespace 0!

Each branch will have own pdiff based on branch activity. So the small worlds will have small operation fees and they'll be isolated from activity of other namespaces. And they will maintain only their branch small data.

Killer-feature!

[Rassah]

Out of curiosity, how are you typing in English: writing everything yourself, or writing in Russian and using Google Translate?

[pent]

My english isn't ideal and I use Lingvo translator for particular words, not phrases.

If you find any mistakes, you are welcome to fix'em.

[Rassah]

My english isn't ideal and I use Lingvo translator for particular words, not phrases.

If you find any mistakes, you are welcome to fix'em.

I was asking because if you typed in Russian and used a translator, I would have suggested you post the original Russian as well. I admit, it is sometimes a bit difficult to understand what you are trying to say.

[pent]

Russian thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64282.0

[rjk]

My english isn't ideal and I use Lingvo translator for particular words, not phrases.

If you find any mistakes, you are welcome to fix'em.

I was asking because if you typed in Russian and used a translator, I would have suggested you post the original Russian as well. I admit, it is sometimes a bit difficult to understand what you are trying to say.

FWIW, you guys both have very good English. Very understandable.

[btc_artist]

For the record, I haven't had any problems understanding the English.

[Rassah]

Me neither, but sometimes it's just difficult to grasp the idea being presented right away

[pent]

Design changelog added, to easily navigate list of major changes
http://dianna-project.org/wiki/Design_Changelog

Known issues added to make a food for mind
http://dianna-project.org/wiki/Known_Design_Issues

Please register, discuss, offer solutions.

We will change the world.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Good luck with this guys it looks very much like what satoshi was thinking about with the alternate chains system. Thumbs up.

[pent]

Please join the discussions in wiki, I opened registrations.

[pent]

Alright, the final strokes.

Decentralized P2P DNS System Design version 1.4. Changelog

1. Non-linear block chain, block tree

Each Namespace will have its own block chain, its own activity, its own PDiff, and thus, its own domain operation price.

Total namespaces isolation. I2P namespace and chain branch will not contain any data from Tor namespace and branch and any other. And visa-versa.

Small namespaces will have small domain operation price. Bigger namespaces will have bigger one.

Attack on single block chain branch will not affect other branches. And attack on whole DIANNA block tree will be just huge, difficult work.

2. Single domain transaction contains only 1 input and only 1 output, and both about single domain. So 1 domain = 1 transaction. And nothing else.

Since miners process only domain transactions which were directly paid with fee for them, there is no need to include many domain operations in single transaction.

This also will make domain lookup easier. So the authoritative domain reply lookup will be as follow:

For first, DNS client queries for particular domain and network returns a last domain transaction hash and block hash. Highest block wins - as always. Here client can verify that block hash is present in local headers chain and has a particular height.

For the second, client queries the network for Merkle Tree branch for needed domain transaction and transaction data itself. Here he can verify that transaction data are correct by reassembling Merkle Tree and comparing its root hash against local stored block header in chain.

Since client ensured that network returned *valid* *last* transaction for this domain, he can easily resolve domain into VALUE containing in transaction output.

Peace a cake

I need volunteers to code this tree of freedom. Primary, I need the project manager which will coordinate programmers. For the first steps I can be ideologist, project manager and programmer in one But I really need a help.

[pent]

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete" Buckminster Fuller

"Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world." Margaret Mead

Quotes from http://p2pfoundation.net/

[pent]

Dear Ukigo, I had a talk with cjd (CJDNS leader) in IRC, IRC log is somewhere above in this topic.

He said he will use DIANNA as DNS as long as its domain price would be free or almost free.

His requirement brought DIANNA design to version 1.4 (current), where namespaces have been isolated and non-linear block chain added.

This will allow small networks, having small activity - to have a correspondent small domain fee. I think in CJDNS case it will be almost free.

[pent]

New changes! Ideas just run and run - and not going to stop v1.5
http://dianna-project.org/wiki/Design_Changelog

Summary: Replace forced PDiff system definition by forced domain transaction fee definition, remove Difficulty penalty. Fee is now set by DIANNA for particular Namespace.

* Remove forced PDiff system definition (Pentarh Udi, rpMan)
* Add forced domain transaction fee definition (Pentarh Udi, rpMan)
* Remove Difficulty penalty (Pentarh Udi, rpMan)
* Use cases clearification

DIANNA now will define a price (hallelujah!!!) for domain operation instead of PDiff. Price will be dedicated to each namespace and depend on its network activity. Thanks to rpMan.

[pent]

I need help.

Is there any possible way to send a bitcoin transaction with fee to some address/hash and this transaction can be widthdrawn later only by miner who lately merge-mined DIANNA block with correspondent domain transaction?

I want to depersonalize mining pools in this scheme, so domain transaction can be processed by any miner, not miner who was paid directly by client for processing.

This is related to Miners consolidation possible (last?) issue.

Detailed problem: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66959

[btc_artist]

I need help.

Is there any possible way to send a bitcoin transaction with fee to some address/hash and this transaction can be widthdrawn later only by miner who lately merge-mined DIANNA block with correspondent domain transaction?

I want to depersonalize mining pools in this scheme, so domain transaction can be processed by any miner, not miner who was paid directly by client for processing.

This is related to Miners consolidation possible (last?) issue.

Detailed problem: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66959

Have your read this page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts ?  I think there's probably something in there that could be adapted for what you want to do.

[pent]

So. I decided do not complicate system with any contracts procedures. If anyone scaried to loose his money during name update, he can consider using escrow services.

The current 1.6 rawhide preview is almost on track. This design looks perfect. Does anyone see the vulnerabilities in it?

So, here is the DIANNA internals with bunch of tech details:

The Block Chain Tree
Namespaces
Block
Transaction
Fees: 1 2
Retargeting Repricing
No independent Difficulty
And Merged Mining Implementation

[Red Emerald]

At first I wasn't sure why you didn't just work on Namecoin, but now that you have more on your wiki, I am understanding more.

Um. Are you sure having the difficulty being higher than Bitcoins difficulty is a good idea? Not everyone merge mines namecoin with bitcoin. They have different difficulties and there isn't a problem that I'm aware of.  DIANNA Blocks are going to be WAY slower than bitcoin blocks.  Even if half (which is probably a high guess) of the bitcoin network merge mines DIANNA, won't block time be worse than 20 minutes?  Is this what you want? Maybe I'm just missing something.

[pent]

And we have the first simulation of single namespace running with graphs!

It includes dynamics graphs of:
* Domain price
* Block solving time
* Miners profit
* Number of handled transactions

Please follow: http://dianna-project.org/wiki/Calc_1

It illustrates how DIANNA looks for correct fee value and transaction commit time depending on namespace activity.

[pent]

Also, immitation of Bitcoin block reward change from 50 to 25 BTC.

How this will affect on DIANNA price?

In a region of step 30000 change bounty to 25.

Code:

bounty=50.0

for z1 in range(1, last):
    if z1 == 30000:
        bounty=25
#bla-bla
    pdiff = domfee/(bounty + bitcom)

What happens with price?



Note, the price graph is based on example simulations. For real activity price can be different, but it is explicitely linked to network activity, so it has a feedback, so it will change to community expectations.

[Red Emerald]

Any answer to this?

DIANNA Blocks are going to be WAY slower than bitcoin blocks.  Even if half (which is probably a high guess) of the bitcoin network merge mines DIANNA, won't block time be worse than 20 minutes?  Is this what you want? Maybe I'm just missing something.

[pent]

Any answer to this?

DIANNA Blocks are going to be WAY slower than bitcoin blocks.  Even if half (which is probably a high guess) of the bitcoin network merge mines DIANNA, won't block time be worse than 20 minutes?  Is this what you want? Maybe I'm just missing something.

Every namespace will have its own block appear time and yes, it will be higher than Bitcoin, as namespace will have always a bit higher difficulty than bitcoin.

For example, users of potentional CJDNS namespace will be not so active as users of I2P, or users of Tor namespace. All them have their optimal activity and network adjusts block frequency and price to this activity.

DIANNA is a domain system, not financial. I don't see problem of transaction approve time from 20 minutes to a hour.

Modern ICANN domain registars process domain request from minutes to days.

[Rassah]

It takes up to 24 hours for current DNS changes to go through and propagate. I don't think a delay with DIANNA will be an issue.

[Bitcoin Oz]

^^ like

http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/10/25/us-to-seek-bids-to-manage-key-aspect-of-the-internet/  just came across this which is interesting.

[pent]

Yes, they will not settle down until ICANN not submit its authority to feds.

I have opened a forum for futher conversations so far .

http://dianna-project.org/forum/

For a near weeks unfortunately I dont have enough time for this project. I definately need contributors.

The whole idea got its own form now in wiki. It is time to start coding.

[matthewh3]

Have you thought of creating the block chain so it only exists inside the I2P network for better anonymity or is this not possible 

[pent]

If I do this, I automatically make this DNS closed to other anonymous networks, as they will require i2p router to run. The DNS client must be light.

However it is possible to add i2p BOB transport protocol as additional layer along with TCP/IP

[matthewh3]

If I do this, I automatically make this DNS closed to other anonymous networks, as they will require i2p router to run. The DNS client must be light.

However it is possible to add i2p BOB transport protocol as additional layer along with TCP/IP

Then it would be totally anonymous if the blockchain only existed inside the I2P network.  The problem with Tor is you have to rely on a certain number of output nodes which could all/most be monitored and also blocked.

[bitlotto]

If I do this, I automatically make this DNS closed to other anonymous networks, as they will require i2p router to run. The DNS client must be light.

However it is possible to add i2p BOB transport protocol as additional layer along with TCP/IP

Then it would be totally anonymous if the blockchain only existed inside the I2P network.  The problem with Tor is you have to rely on a certain number of output nodes which could all/most be monitored and also blocked.

I'm sure that there will always be TOR exit nodes somewhere in the world that aren't blocked from accessing the DIANNA blockchain. 

[matthewh3]

If I do this, I automatically make this DNS closed to other anonymous networks, as they will require i2p router to run. The DNS client must be light.

However it is possible to add i2p BOB transport protocol as additional layer along with TCP/IP

Then it would be totally anonymous if the blockchain only existed inside the I2P network.  The problem with Tor is you have to rely on a certain number of output nodes which could all/most be monitored and also blocked.

I'm sure that there will always be TOR exit nodes somewhere in the world that aren't blocked from accessing the DIANNA blockchain. 

I just don't like Tor as the only reason it went public because it makes the CIA darknet bigger for them to hide in.  I'm not a expert but I think a blockchain that solely exists inside the I2P network is a smart idea.

[bitlotto]

If I do this, I automatically make this DNS closed to other anonymous networks, as they will require i2p router to run. The DNS client must be light.

However it is possible to add i2p BOB transport protocol as additional layer along with TCP/IP

Then it would be totally anonymous if the blockchain only existed inside the I2P network.  The problem with Tor is you have to rely on a certain number of output nodes which could all/most be monitored and also blocked.

I'm sure that there will always be TOR exit nodes somewhere in the world that aren't blocked from accessing the DIANNA blockchain. 

I just don't like Tor as the only reason it went public because it makes the CIA darknet bigger for them to hide in.  I'm not a expert but I think a blockchain that solely exists inside the I2P network is a smart idea.

Ok. But then you limit it's availability. If you are concerned about being anonymous you could access the registrar using I2P and do the DIANNA lookups with I2P. I'm sure sites will pop up allowing you to access DIANNA through I2P, TOR, and just the regular old web.

[matthewh3]

If I do this, I automatically make this DNS closed to other anonymous networks, as they will require i2p router to run. The DNS client must be light.

However it is possible to add i2p BOB transport protocol as additional layer along with TCP/IP

Then it would be totally anonymous if the blockchain only existed inside the I2P network.  The problem with Tor is you have to rely on a certain number of output nodes which could all/most be monitored and also blocked.

I'm sure that there will always be TOR exit nodes somewhere in the world that aren't blocked from accessing the DIANNA blockchain. 

I just don't like Tor as the only reason it went public because it makes the CIA darknet bigger for them to hide in.  I'm not a expert but I think a blockchain that solely exists inside the I2P network is a smart idea.

Ok. But then you limit it's availability. If you are concerned about being anonymous you could access the registrar using I2P and do the DIANNA lookups with I2P. I'm sure sites will pop up allowing you to access DIANNA through I2P, TOR, and just the regular old web.

Check who is the biggest sponsor of Tor - https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en - The US government and taken from the official Tor homepage - Tor was originally designed, implemented, and deployed as a third-generation onion routing project of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. It was originally developed with the U.S. Navy in mind, for the primary purpose of protecting government communications - All Tor traffic exits through a number of public nodes which are all known. These nodes could all be/being monitored and blocked.
Like I said I think a blockchain that solely exists inside the I2P network is a good idea as all Tor traffic is probably monitored and could be stopped by the US government.  The only reason they let it exist is to make the CIA darknet bigger for them to hide in. 

[pent]

Check who is the biggest sponsor of Tor - https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en - The US government and taken from the official Tor homepage - Tor was originally designed, implemented, and deployed as a third-generation onion routing project of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. It was originally developed with the U.S. Navy in mind, for the primary purpose of protecting government communications - All Tor traffic exits through a number of public nodes which are all known. These nodes could all be/being monitored and blocked.
Like I said I think a blockchain that solely exists inside the I2P network is a good idea as all Tor traffic is probably monitored and could be stopped by the US government.  The only reason they let it exist is to make the CIA darknet bigger for them to hide in. 

Looks like their child brought a lot of problems like Silk Road =)

There is no sense to make Tor/I2P transport layer to commucate to TCP/IP through it via out proxies at all.

Anyway, I need to get it work over TCP/IP first.

[matthewh3]

Check who is the biggest sponsor of Tor - https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en - The US government and taken from the official Tor homepage - Tor was originally designed, implemented, and deployed as a third-generation onion routing project of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. It was originally developed with the U.S. Navy in mind, for the primary purpose of protecting government communications - All Tor traffic exits through a number of public nodes which are all known. These nodes could all be/being monitored and blocked.
Like I said I think a blockchain that solely exists inside the I2P network is a good idea as all Tor traffic is probably monitored and could be stopped by the US government.  The only reason they let it exist is to make the CIA darknet bigger for them to hide in. 

Looks like their child brought a lot of problems like Silk Road =)

There is no sense to make Tor/I2P transport layer to commucate to TCP/IP through it via out proxies at all.

Anyway, I need to get it work over TCP/IP first.

Like I said I only think the US let their creation public and continue is to grow their own darknet to make it easier for them to hide in.  They could monitor all exit nodes and they could block them all so I don't think Tor can be relied on long-term to hide in the internet but a blockchain that solely exists within the I2P network would be a very robust way to hide your mining, transactions and wealth.  As I don't think Tor can be relied on to access your bitcoins anonymously so a I2P alternative would offer complete anonymity as I don't know a way to connect to the bitcoin blockchain from I2P apart from a proxy (again which could be monitored and blocked) only using Tor.

[matthewh3]

The websites your going to create DNS for hidden from censorship 'ect.' I think it makes sense to include them within the network.  If it won't work for Tor create a public blockchain for it(which shows its weakness) and a hidden blockchain within the I2P for that network.  If the SilkRoad got massive or this new 'Armoury' Tor site did or alt-currencies got massive and the US tried to block them but people were still using them via Tor the US could and would pull the plug on Tor if the thorn in their side got to big.  So if alt-currencies were outlawed and they also pulled the plug on Tor it would be very difficult for alt-currencies to be usefull but a block chain within I2P could still be used if people could get access to the I2P client because apart from outlawing encrypted web-traffic I see no way of stopping I2P unless they monitored a persons internet traffic.  You see with Tor they only have to monitor/block the output nodes which would be easier for them to find then monitoring every persons internet traffic for I2P traffic.  I think they would find it hard to ban Tor or I2P but to stop Tor it would easier (like I said they like a large Tor network for the CIA to better hide in) than I2P.  So an alt-currency within I2P could end up the only alt-currency if the likes of bitcoin got massive and the governments thought they were loosing too much tax.       

[marcus_of_augustus]

The websites your going to create DNS for hidden from censorship 'ect.' I think it makes sense to include them within the network.  If it won't work for Tor create a public blockchain for it(which shows its weakness) and a hidden blockchain within the I2P for that network.  If the SilkRoad got massive or this new 'Armoury' Tor site did or alt-currencies got massive and the US tried to block them but people were still using them via Tor the US could and would pull the plug on Tor if the thorn in their side got to big.  So if alt-currencies were outlawed and they also pulled the plug on Tor it would be very difficult for alt-currencies to be usefull but a block chain within I2P could still be used if people could get access to the I2P client because apart from outlawing encrypted web-traffic I see no way of stopping I2P unless they monitored a persons internet traffic.  You see with Tor they only have to monitor/block the output nodes which would be easier for them to find then monitoring every persons internet traffic for I2P traffic.  I think they would find it hard to ban Tor or I2P but to stop Tor it would easier (like I said they like a large Tor network for the CIA to better hide in) than I2P.  So an alt-currency within I2P could end up the only alt-currency if the likes of bitcoin got massive and the governments thought they were loosing too much tax.       

Your assumption is that bitcoin tech (maybe not alt-currency offshoots) is not a CIA darknet project like Tor. Check your assumptions maybe?

[matthewh3]

The websites your going to create DNS for hidden from censorship 'ect.' I think it makes sense to include them within the network.  If it won't work for Tor create a public blockchain for it(which shows its weakness) and a hidden blockchain within the I2P for that network.  If the SilkRoad got massive or this new 'Armoury' Tor site did or alt-currencies got massive and the US tried to block them but people were still using them via Tor the US could and would pull the plug on Tor if the thorn in their side got to big.  So if alt-currencies were outlawed and they also pulled the plug on Tor it would be very difficult for alt-currencies to be usefull but a block chain within I2P could still be used if people could get access to the I2P client because apart from outlawing encrypted web-traffic I see no way of stopping I2P unless they monitored a persons internet traffic.  You see with Tor they only have to monitor/block the output nodes which would be easier for them to find then monitoring every persons internet traffic for I2P traffic.  I think they would find it hard to ban Tor or I2P but to stop Tor it would easier (like I said they like a large Tor network for the CIA to better hide in) than I2P.  So an alt-currency within I2P could end up the only alt-currency if the likes of bitcoin got massive and the governments thought they were loosing too much tax.       

Your assumption is that bitcoin tech (maybe not alt-currency offshoots) is not a CIA darknet project like Tor. Check your assumptions maybe?

Possibly but I don't want to get to into conspiracy theory's apart from I do think the US government could shutdown Tor and also outlaw bitcoin transactions.  Leaving me no way to access the bitcoin block chain anonymously but if there was a I2P network that would not be a problem.    To be honest my own conspiracy theory's regarding bitcoin creation are more due with 'A.I' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity 

[pent]

Moving forward =)

I started development repo and made some sketches in Java.

Details here:

http://dianna-project.org/forum/index.php/topic,11.0.html

[Red Emerald]

So I just watched an amazing (albeit long) presentation about SSL. He brings up some great points against DNSSEC that I had not thought about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA

Convergence is just about SSL certificates and trust, and not about the DNS layer.  I think a plugin that works with convergence or a standalone plugin that works on some of the same ideas could really help build a usable Distributed DNS.

One of the most important parts of DIANNA (and Namecoin or even any other distributed DNS) is the ability to trust self signed SSL certificates. It cuts out the huge and unnecessary job of Certificate Authorities while not reducing security. 

The beauty of convergence is that you just click a button in Firefox and it works, and IMHO we need that for a DDNS to take off.

[HostFat]

Is this project still active?

[ThomasV]

Is this project still active?

I believe it is not. the dedicated forum is filled with spam.
I was very enthusiastic about it at the beginning, but I now realize it is probably not going anywhere.

[ThomasV]

2) crash somehow MMM-2011 pontzi nonsense <--
 this will free 'pent' from his delusions and will put him back on right track   

the fact that he gets involved in a Ponzi scheme is another reason why I do not think he is serious

[Luke-Jr]

Is this project still active?

I looked at their GitHub some weeks ago and the one and only change they made was to "become free of the Bitcoin developers" by using Freenode as the seed IRC server (Freenode doesn't like this!) and similar nonsense. At that point, I ceased taking DIANNA seriously.

[ptshamrock]

sad it ends like that

[ptshamrock]

petn if ur really good at projects & programming contact me via pm..maybe i have something interesting

[ArsenShnurkov]

http://waqur.livejournal.com/455527.html