I think there is a scaling problem here -- every client in the network has to hold a full copy of the entire block-chain in order to know every host on the .bit TLD or to participate in acquiring and actively renewing one's domains. DNS solves this problem by virtue of its recursive nature. I'm not sure this is suitable for Internet-scale use.
You wouldn't necessarily have to worry about that - the name servers would need to have the entire block-chain without requiring all users to maintain a client or a block-chain. Anyone wanting to own a domain must participate and to maintain the ownership their clients must continue running which would keep them up to date with the blockchain as well.
Basically - if you want to own a domain in the .bit TLD you have to run the client - if you are just a standard user, you can just access the available nameservers.
I thought one of the goals was for it to be fully decentralized. If I'm relying on a nameserver I trust (let's say ICANN starts running their own .bit mirror) then what's to stop ICANN from making edits to whatever they serve up as per what the US government forces them to do? If ICANN adds their .bit TLD mirror to the root servers then we're back at square 1 because most people will consume .bit through the roots. In order to deliver on the promise of decentralization it seems every client must have its own copy by default instead of relying on a trusted authority. I think that doesn't scale very well, though.
Side note: my understanding of bitcoin is that a given bitcoin network requires a central IRC server for command/control of miners. This also won't scale to an Internet-sized volume of clients.
In order to deliver on the promise of decentralization it seems every client must have its own copy by default instead of relying on a trusted authority.
No, you just need enough servers to make it unlikely any one entity could gain over 50% of the computing power on the network. So if there were 1 million simple clients and only 10,000 clients with a full block chain, then any attacker would have to exceed the computing power of those 10,000 full clients in order to subvert the network.
my understanding of bitcoin is that a given bitcoin network requires a central IRC server for command/control of miners
IRC is just used as a way of getting a list of initial peers to connect to the network. It has nothing to do with command/control of miners.
Good point about the central authority - I would be curious how they think to accomplish that.
In regards to the IRC server - IRC servers can scale horizontally using a multicast type protocol - it's been literally a decade since I've been on IRC but I am sure that this protocol must have improved and that load can always be increased (and also would leave things less centralized).
Essentially, yes. For mining. Transactions don't require you to have the full block chain, you just have to "know" your current balance's info so you can make modifications to it.
This is how it is implemented now. However, it is not needed. The dev's have already said this can and will change when it needs too.
Pluss, even now it is only the mining rig's that need the full list. If you just want a wallet to send and receve bitcoin you don't need the whole thing.... Correct me if I am worng. Also, you can use an on-line wallet service to hold your coins and then you don't need anything.
So essentially there is going to be a big change to make BitCoin work better in a while. That sounds like IPv6, new web versions, and OS/browser upgrade head fuck.
No, it is not a change in the protocol. It will be a seamless migration for normal clients to not keep the entire blockchain. This was planned for from day 1.
