DIANNA: the IANA Decentralized design concept

[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

[1715013912]

1715013912

[1715013912]

1715013912

[1715013912]

1715013912

[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?