Can you give a break down of this in a way that everyone and anyone can understand? https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/535/
590 sats \ 4 replies \ @Brunswick 18 Sep 2022
It means just because some use-case could be solved with proof of work, it doesen't mean you should expand the bitcoin protocol to include that use-case such as DNS. It's because they are separate applications; DNS is a data service, bitcoin is a hard asset. He isn't saying you shouldn't buy domains with bitcoin. He also is essentially saying NFTs shouldn't be recorded on the bitcoin blockchain itself such as storing an image or a movie in a block. If you want to make your own POW based storage service, fine, but don't try to shoehorn it into a monetary asset because they have very different requirements and design constraints.
reply
250 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 18 Sep 2022
In other words:
- feature creep is bad
- KISS (keep it simple, stupid)
- an idiot admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity
- ...
reply
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 18 Sep 2022
- less attack surface
reply
171 sats \ 1 reply \ @kilianbuhn 18 Sep 2022
😱😱
he was so far ahead in his head. It's insane.
reply
101 sats \ 0 replies \ @falsefaucet 18 Sep 2022
The foresight is incredible
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @random_bitcoiner 19 Sep 2022
Is he talking about atomic swaps in the last paragraph?
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @premitive1 19 Sep 2022
I might be a little off base, but as I understand the BitDNS discussion, it would use the same PoW as bitcoin, but it would not be on the bitcoin block chain.
In this sense, the same miner could process both transactions. Does it count as atomic if you have to wait for a block to get mined?
reply
13 sats \ 3 replies \ @random_bitcoiner 19 Sep 2022
Mmm... you can't have the same miner process both transactions if they're on different networks.
It's this part that strikes me as as a generic description of a cross-chain atomic swap. Granted, I think the implementations that were made later actually work with scripts containing hashes and pre-images, but the idea is basically the same: we craft 2 contracts built in such a way that when you claim your part, you end up releasing the information I need to claim mine. It's atomic in the sense that you either have the 2 things happening or nothing happens.
And I'm no cryptography wizzard, but I believe there is a way to do this with signatures.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @premitive1 19 Sep 2022
Do you know about merged-mining?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @random_bitcoiner 20 Sep 2022
Yes, but he's talking about "trades" there, that's why I don't think merged mining applies.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @premitive1 20 Sep 2022
but specifically about a trade between merged mined chains: Bitcoin and BitDNS. You would have to know already that Satoshi suggested BitDNS as a use case for merged mining. Therefore he does actually mean a trade between merged mined chains.
Maybe he had a more general meaning, but that's my understanding from the context of the BitDNS discussion.
reply