pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious OP 13 Jan \ parent \ on: The Inherent Flaw: Why Decentralized Domain Naming Systems are Doomed to Fail bitcoin
No sir, that is not how Bitcoin works at all. Not in the slightest. You may be missing the nuance here.
There is nothing about 'off chain entities' in the Bitcoin protocol. There is ScriptPubKey and ScriptSigs (and Witnesses). The protocol does not specify how addresses are relayed in the real world. Its not part of the protocol. How humans exchange "bitcoin addresses" is not part of the protocol. There used to be an pay-to-IP component in the protocol, but this is now deprecated.
The point is that discussing how humans exchange human readable addresses between each other is the layer above this problem, and that is the layer in which the DDNS problem exists.
So we are discussing very different things here.
Clarification:
Bitcoin does not let me transmit an invalid tx, because it is self contained and must consume an existing output, and send to a new output. The input ScriptSig must be correct as per the bitcoin protocol.
DDNS lets me submit any invalid names, be it fake, fraud, phishing, squatting, just plain wrong. There is no way to validate it it in protocol.
This is the fundamental difference.
The point is that discussing how humans exchange human readable addresses between each other is the layer above this problem, and that is the layer in which the DDNS problem exists. So we are discussing very different things here.
No they are not different, it's the same problem. Again:
If you have a secure way to pass someone your address so that they do not send money to the wrong place, then you also have a secure way to pass someone a DDNS name so that they don't go to the wrong website.
Bitcoin does not let me transmit an invalid tx, because it is self contained and must consume an existing output, and send to a new output. The input ScriptSig must be correct as per the bitcoin protocol. DDNS lets me submit any invalid names, be it fake, fraud, phishing, squatting, just plain wrong. There is no way to validate it it in protocol. This is the fundamental difference.
"submitting an invalid name" ("incorrect" is a better term than "invalid" here) is no different than "submitting an incorrect bitcoin address", which the bitcoin protocol will let you do. Address replacement is a well-known attack. See e.g.
reply
You are missing what I am saying here. The address substitution is occurring at the layer above bitcoin, eg: before it is signed by the user with wallet. This is meat space.
Bitcoin protocol does not allow an attacker to modify a bitcoin transaction when signed. A node cannot interpret a tx as anything but how it was signed. (eg: tx mutability).
As long as the meatspace signing part worked (and we have to assume it did, because Bitcoin cannot effect meatspace).
Everything about DDNS is a problem in the meatspace. You cannot solve it with Bitcoin, which cannot effect meatspace.
reply
As long as the meatspace signing part worked
this is the central caveat which makes it the same problem
you cannot assume this part works in either scenario
reply
Which is the fundamental thesis of my essay, that it cannot solve this problem.
I'm glad you agree with me.
reply
I think it is I who should be thanking you for agreeing with me, since it seems that you no longer feel this way:
I dont agree about your replace -- Bitcoin does not link an on-chain address to an off-chain entity.
reply