4 ms·

I have been looking at *coins for a while and the implications of the blockchain-based concensus system are interesting. The system really maps the real world

by gomox 13y ago

I have been looking at *coins for a while and the implications of the blockchain-based concensus system are interesting. The system really maps the real world onto computers very well, in that it reduces what used to be technical issues to "political" issues. These systems work on concensus, and as such, require a significant amount of interested parties to work in the expected way. They are very much subject to network effects that only occur after critical mass is reached. Namecoin, in particular, was subject to a major security issue last year: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ohyom/fatal_flaw_in_namecoin_found_doesnt_enforce_some/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ohyom/fatal_flaw_i... Blockchains are being used to implement solutions to different problems, and they could really solve some significant problems such as decentralized identity and reputation management (!). The difficulty lies in creating a significant enough "currency" so that miners will become involved and make the blockchain stable and reliable. Bitcoin is a currency in a much stronger sense than namecoin or any other of "not-really-money-coins" around. I wonder if piggybacking on bitcoin might actually be the solution for this situation (i.e introduce other information in the bitcoin blockchain instead of using a brand new one). Sadly, adding external information to the blockchain could be construed as "spamming the blockchain" and therefore not deemed worthy for inclusion in the bitcoin blockchain by miners. So there is a big challenge there. If you are interested in this topic and want to work on related projects feel free to reach out (google my username).

elidourado 13y ago
> Blockchains are being used to implement solutions to different problems, and they could really solve some significant problems such as decentralized identity and reputation management (!). The difficulty lies in creating a significant enough "currency" so that miners will become involved and make the blockchain stable and reliable. Author of the original article here. Namecoin is actually merge-mined with Bitcoin, so miner participation is not a serious problem. There's no way you could have known that without happening to know that, though, and I agree that this is an issue for a lot of new blockchain-based technologies.
- gomox 13y ago
  Maybe I've misunderstood it, but how does merge mining create an incentive to mine namecoins? I figured all it did was make it "cheaper" to mine namecoins by "reusing" work done for the bitcoin blockchain. In order for the namecoin network to function, you still need to actively get involved with it. Here's some information on merge-mining for anyone else involved: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merged-mining-work http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merg... http://dot-bit.org/Merged_Mining http://dot-bit.org/Merged_Mining
  - elidourado 13y ago
    Most of the major Bitcoin mining pools also mine Namecoin. The current Namecoin hashrate is around 60% of the Bitcoin hashrate. http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-nmc.html http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-nmc.html
    - gomox 13y ago
      Well, that's a lot! I didn't expect it to be significant compared to the bitcoin pool. Do you know how that came to be? i.e how did they convince everyone to start mining namecoin? Or was it just good timing WRT bitcoin?
      - wmf 13y ago
        Merged mining has good incentives since it basically gives free money; for the same work of mining Bitcoin you can mine Bitcoin and Namecoin simultaneously.
      - elidourado 13y ago
        I'm not too sure. A lot of people in the cryptocurrency community are saying that something like Namecoin is going to be the second major blockchain-based technology after payments, so maybe it just got the right kind of press at the right time, as you say.
SideshowBobb 13y ago
I've always felt that increasing the number of use-cases for Bitcoin would be the key to establishing Bitcoin's intrinsic value. When everyday people think to themselves, "I need Bitcoin to do X", and X is something real like signing into a Web service, then people will finally understand the need for Bitcoin. Building on top of Bitcoin is the easiest and simplest way of accomplishing this, because otherwise every new app has to build and maintain its own blockchain in a low level language like C++. In which case, core Bitcoin development gets increasingly fragmented and everyone and their mother has an altcoin that then needs to be marketed on its own right to miners and to the public. While it's true that the Bitcoin blockchain would grow in size if more apps built on top of it, the Bitcoin blockchain will grow in size regardless of what anyone thinks or does. It's already 15GB, which is a far bigger burden on consumers than what they're used to. There's always a huge backlash amongst Bitcoin developers whenever someone tries building anything on top of Bitcoin. Timestamping or notarization? You'll get yelled at for the mere suggestion of including this "trash" in the blockchain. Very, very unfortunate IMO and a huge mistake by the Bitcoin development community. I honestly think it's because they'd rather stick their head in the sand about the blockchain. The fact that the Bitcoin blockchain is growing faster and faster disturbs them because it means not everyone can run a full node on their Macbook. I don't think it's any reason for concern.
hoggle 13y ago
Another interesting article on that topic: "Enter The Blockchain: How Bitcoin Can Turn The Cloud Inside Out" http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/22/enter-the-blockchain-how-bitcoin-can-turn-the-cloud-inside-out/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/22/enter-the-blockchain-how-bi... What I'm interested in the most would be a new way to do Email. P2P and secure. I can't believe that most of us are still sending Email unencrypted but then again can you really blame us? PGP has failed not only in its main use case (trust in people, really?) but most of all in terms of usablity.

by gomox 13y ago

elidourado 13y ago

> Blockchains are being used to implement solutions to different problems, and they could really solve some significant problems such as decentralized identity and reputation management (!). The difficulty lies in creating a significant enough "currency" so that miners will become involved and make the blockchain stable and reliable. Author of the original article here. Namecoin is actually merge-mined with Bitcoin, so miner participation is not a serious problem. There's no way you could have known that without happening to know that, though, and I agree that this is an issue for a lot of new blockchain-based technologies.

gomox 13y ago
Maybe I've misunderstood it, but how does merge mining create an incentive to mine namecoins? I figured all it did was make it "cheaper" to mine namecoins by "reusing" work done for the bitcoin blockchain. In order for the namecoin network to function, you still need to actively get involved with it. Here's some information on merge-mining for anyone else involved: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merged-mining-work http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merg... http://dot-bit.org/Merged_Mining http://dot-bit.org/Merged_Mining
- elidourado 13y ago
  Most of the major Bitcoin mining pools also mine Namecoin. The current Namecoin hashrate is around 60% of the Bitcoin hashrate. http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-nmc.html http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-nmc.html
  - gomox 13y ago
    Well, that's a lot! I didn't expect it to be significant compared to the bitcoin pool. Do you know how that came to be? i.e how did they convince everyone to start mining namecoin? Or was it just good timing WRT bitcoin?
    - wmf 13y ago
      Merged mining has good incentives since it basically gives free money; for the same work of mining Bitcoin you can mine Bitcoin and Namecoin simultaneously.
    - elidourado 13y ago
      I'm not too sure. A lot of people in the cryptocurrency community are saying that something like Namecoin is going to be the second major blockchain-based technology after payments, so maybe it just got the right kind of press at the right time, as you say.

SideshowBobb 13y ago

I've always felt that increasing the number of use-cases for Bitcoin would be the key to establishing Bitcoin's intrinsic value. When everyday people think to themselves, "I need Bitcoin to do X", and X is something real like signing into a Web service, then people will finally understand the need for Bitcoin. Building on top of Bitcoin is the easiest and simplest way of accomplishing this, because otherwise every new app has to build and maintain its own blockchain in a low level language like C++. In which case, core Bitcoin development gets increasingly fragmented and everyone and their mother has an altcoin that then needs to be marketed on its own right to miners and to the public. While it's true that the Bitcoin blockchain would grow in size if more apps built on top of it, the Bitcoin blockchain will grow in size regardless of what anyone thinks or does. It's already 15GB, which is a far bigger burden on consumers than what they're used to. There's always a huge backlash amongst Bitcoin developers whenever someone tries building anything on top of Bitcoin. Timestamping or notarization? You'll get yelled at for the mere suggestion of including this "trash" in the blockchain. Very, very unfortunate IMO and a huge mistake by the Bitcoin development community. I honestly think it's because they'd rather stick their head in the sand about the blockchain. The fact that the Bitcoin blockchain is growing faster and faster disturbs them because it means not everyone can run a full node on their Macbook. I don't think it's any reason for concern.

hoggle 13y ago

Another interesting article on that topic: "Enter The Blockchain: How Bitcoin Can Turn The Cloud Inside Out" http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/22/enter-the-blockchain-how-bitcoin-can-turn-the-cloud-inside-out/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/22/enter-the-blockchain-how-bi... What I'm interested in the most would be a new way to do Email. P2P and secure. I can't believe that most of us are still sending Email unencrypted but then again can you really blame us? PGP has failed not only in its main use case (trust in people, really?) but most of all in terms of usablity.