📅 Original date posted:2013-02-09
📝 Original message:On Saturday, February 09, 2013 2:33:25 PM Timo Hanke wrote:
> > Why don't you use namecoin or another alt-chain for this?
>
> Because namcoin tries to solve a different problem, DNS, whereas I want
> to establish an identity for a payment protocol.
What is the technical difference here? Namecoin ties names to data; DNS is a
specific namespace in it. There is no reason I know of that this identity
stuff cannot be a new namespace.
> You can argue that alt-chains _can_ be as strong as bitcoin, but they
> don't _have to_ be. There is no guarantee how many people will
> cross-mine.
This is true of namecoin, but it does not have to be true of new merged-mined
data. You could very well require the Bitcoin proof-of-work to be valid and
the master header to be in the Bitcoin blockchain.
> The alt-chain could even disappear at some point. If at some point your alt-
> chain is no longer being worked on, then how do you prove that some old
> bitcoin transaction went to an address for which there was a valid
> id/certificate at the time of sending? If the certificate is based inside
> bitcoin's blockchain then you will have a proof for the correct destinations
> of all your old transactions as long as bitcoin exists.
Yes, if people stop using your system, it won't work. Consider that a "this
idea failed" scenario, where it doesn't matter.
Luke
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 11:31:23
in reply to nevent1q…csls
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsPublished at
2023-06-07 11:31:23Event JSON
{
"id": "7669576f655156a1646b8f13a2dd549b57c81079db50e4e96740c0b5f1991d61",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686137483,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e992a0596803801bdc60b39e6a8f2a9b5632f4cd93d71e49809fd4b4885dc86d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"86ef200c825a3a7ae4d91d8b1306be2f6f69ce8af8af173f17a80ab14a6c8bfb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6b41dfcce682764d40c00fd6580a99614b6bbe8a8332085dea07afbc47ba9e8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-02-09\n📝 Original message:On Saturday, February 09, 2013 2:33:25 PM Timo Hanke wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Why don't you use namecoin or another alt-chain for this?\n\u003e \n\u003e Because namcoin tries to solve a different problem, DNS, whereas I want\n\u003e to establish an identity for a payment protocol.\n\nWhat is the technical difference here? Namecoin ties names to data; DNS is a \nspecific namespace in it. There is no reason I know of that this identity \nstuff cannot be a new namespace.\n\n\u003e You can argue that alt-chains _can_ be as strong as bitcoin, but they\n\u003e don't _have to_ be. There is no guarantee how many people will\n\u003e cross-mine.\n\nThis is true of namecoin, but it does not have to be true of new merged-mined \ndata. You could very well require the Bitcoin proof-of-work to be valid and \nthe master header to be in the Bitcoin blockchain.\n\n\u003e The alt-chain could even disappear at some point. If at some point your alt-\n\u003e chain is no longer being worked on, then how do you prove that some old\n\u003e bitcoin transaction went to an address for which there was a valid\n\u003e id/certificate at the time of sending? If the certificate is based inside\n\u003e bitcoin's blockchain then you will have a proof for the correct destinations\n\u003e of all your old transactions as long as bitcoin exists.\n\nYes, if people stop using your system, it won't work. Consider that a \"this \nidea failed\" scenario, where it doesn't matter.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "f149e970a793c1abc4efce4526b1482404005b2d05e9ea09170b866360058d4d71d80a5ac852ecf914b1c556951f0a2fab89a32d9d9eaa2f5deb0b45a3b45ec2"
}