DIANNA: the IANA Decentralized design concept

[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Sorry for outdated reply !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.