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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Systems Optimization Self Assessment Improve efficiency and utilization of IT resources. Drive out cost and improve service delivery. Take 5 minutes to use this Systems Optimization Self Assessment. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sdnl/114/51450054/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
