you had me until recommending embedding a shitcoin into the epicenter of Bitcoin
I'm not sure if this requires a new BIP or not, and if it does and the solution is sound, then the latest issue would be approval from the Bitcoin network and approval time (as well as sound development/code of course).
This is a hard fork
I believe merged-mining (mining for two chains at once) is possible without a hard-fork. Infact it was proposed by satoshi himself when talk about BitDNS was going on to instead do the DNS stuff on a seperate chain:
I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously. The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty. I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work. Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.
There's also a Merged mining specification on the Bitcoin Wiki https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining_specification
reply
This is why I love SN
reply
well, shittokens are now on bitcoin with ordinals, which I was against but it happened, so *shrug
Might as well make use of it and have it solve the ICANN problem. I'm not a technical person, so I don't know how or can this be implemented, but I'm just presenting the idea to make bitcoin as the source of decentralized authority instead of ICANN for human readable addresses, for websites or for bitcoin addresses.
reply
there's a difference between creating brc 20s and changing Bitcoin's block reward
reply
What is befuddling in all this is that for some reason NFT bros only talk about secondary markets but the most visible primary market for NFTs is domain names.
Problem isn't solved without the mechanism to pay the nodes that store, relay and propagate the current state of the registry.
reply
Wouldn't the incentive be that they'd be rewarded with those naming tokens and they can:
  • use them themselves (use incentive)
  • sell them (financial incentive)
  • get network fees as people update their tokens (financial incentive)
reply
Making a reward for spending sats to make an NFT doesn't need another reward.
The reward is nobody else can use that private key to authenticate the name.
That's what the cost of a DNS record is based on, and why it is a speculative asset, and has been a form of savings for decades now (Mark Jeftovic has many stories as this was his thing).
Secondary markets are irrelevant to the base ledger. People wait days for domain name transfers currently. I doubt that waiting for a bitcoin confirmation is gonna be onerous.
Price discovery is in the remit of those operating the order books, it does not have to touch the chain at all, and we already have a type of NFT record, among several options that have existed since someone figured out you can put arbitrary data on chain with OP_RETURN.
And I'm pretty sure that robosats, and similar, don't have any blockchain behind them but function perfectly well as marketplaces. Neither would any market in Bitcoin NFT based DNS registration protocol.
reply