📅 Original date posted:2011-12-12
🗒️ Summary of this message: Firstbits proposal for Bitcoin protocol criticized for not scaling well and filling blockchain with unnecessary data; suggests using Namecoin instead.
📝 Original message:On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 00:37 +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> I don't think Amir wants to put it into the protocol, but I still
> don't like much the proposal if it has to rely on servers.
> As an aside, even if firstbits it's not useful enough for the human
> memory, it is still useful for QR-codes like in the case of green
> addresses's POS instant payments.
Firstbits isn't acceptable for anything. As Amir originally pointed
out, it doesn't scale well and worst of all it fills the blockchain with
a ton of crap to get 1 satoshi at an address so that it is
"registered".
>
> Would it be too strange to use namecoin?
> Some devices may need to rely on block exploring servers, but it is
> the easiest decentralized solution that comes to mind.
Firstbits is unacceptable because it causes unnecessary harm to each
Bitcoin node. However, if one were to use a chain specifically crafted
for such a purpose isn't terrible. That said, it still doesn't scale
well and if it becomes popular virtually every implementation would have
to rely on trusted servers at which point you are better off going back
to an HTTPS/DNSSEC-based implementation
Matt
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 02:45:42
in reply to nevent1q…dpwu
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 02:45:42Event JSON
{
"id": "dd8b15eb67d3e8f76817a0c7148dc9b68cb837243bcac1d674d5a02162163228",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686105942,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"247922e9146ee6b54a634fc05ad7a489892c01debcd0510d008be95a47f6db80",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c05c2c1ef4fad46a83946572443998334a1cd3b601205b88af1745e48ee7db59",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"49f07bd32c0108a2903a0fa59f904ed312e0ea427d3269eb5fa910eb4a9e22c4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-12-12\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Firstbits proposal for Bitcoin protocol criticized for not scaling well and filling blockchain with unnecessary data; suggests using Namecoin instead.\n📝 Original message:On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 00:37 +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e I don't think Amir wants to put it into the protocol, but I still\n\u003e don't like much the proposal if it has to rely on servers.\n\u003e As an aside, even if firstbits it's not useful enough for the human\n\u003e memory, it is still useful for QR-codes like in the case of green\n\u003e addresses's POS instant payments.\nFirstbits isn't acceptable for anything. As Amir originally pointed\nout, it doesn't scale well and worst of all it fills the blockchain with\na ton of crap to get 1 satoshi at an address so that it is\n\"registered\". \n\u003e \n\u003e Would it be too strange to use namecoin?\n\u003e Some devices may need to rely on block exploring servers, but it is\n\u003e the easiest decentralized solution that comes to mind.\nFirstbits is unacceptable because it causes unnecessary harm to each\nBitcoin node. However, if one were to use a chain specifically crafted\nfor such a purpose isn't terrible. That said, it still doesn't scale\nwell and if it becomes popular virtually every implementation would have\nto rely on trusted servers at which point you are better off going back\nto an HTTPS/DNSSEC-based implementation\n\nMatt",
"sig": "569a122963f8100c9212900794d6a89abb9280d89616da2a16436425a2b8a48368729b3ed41078006aa56574169b33502c1bc6de888a794851a3324d6cfd7b5e"
}