.bit non-governmental domain name registrar, for the post-SOPA era

Post by krig » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 1:33 PM UTC

jerfelix wrote: post #11

krig wrote: post #8

I'd love to register a .bit domain just as an experiment/for fun, but I'm a bit wary of the methods for obtaining bitcoins that I've found.. anyone have a good tip for an exchange, or experience with obtaining bitcoins/registering a .bit domain through any other means.. Or, any other related information to share? I also can't quite figure out if it's worth my time to set one of my computers at mining bitcoins, how lo…

The short answer is that you SHOULDN'T set up a mining rig to mine bitcoins, if all you want to do is USE bitcoins. Simply buy or trade for them. The easiest way to do that, in my opinion (from a US-centric perspective) is to set up a Dwolla account, transfer a bit of money from your bank to Dwolla. Then transfer that money from Dwolla to an exchange (Mtgox and TradeHill are two examples), and then buy bitcoins at ma…

Post by icebraining » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 1:53 PM UTC

dissident wrote: post #5

icebraining wrote: post #4

I don't get why did they have to replace DNS with some kind of JSON hack which "mostly" supports the same records. There are already a bunch of alternative DNS roots[1] with their own TLDs which work fine with the existing DNS software. [1]: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Alternative_D...

This isn't a replacement of existing DNS with some arbitrary JSON protocol, this is a P2P DNS called Namecoin which happens to use JSON. Arguably, the flexibility offered by JSON can allow for sophisticated technologies to emerge which can take advantage of this naming system. It's clear from the very article of this submission that this is the case. For instance, the I2P fields are combined in a structure that best…

Post by hippich » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 2:08 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #14

dissident wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a replacement of existing DNS with some arbitrary JSON protocol, this is a P2P DNS called Namecoin which happens to use JSON. Arguably, the flexibility offered by JSON can allow for sophisticated technologies to emerge which can take advantage of this naming system. It's clear from the very article of this submission that this is the case. For instance, the I2P fields are combined in a structure that best…

which happens to use JSON But that's my point: why? I'm not saying they should implement a DNS root, I'm saying I don't see the benefit in using a new format, when: 1. The DNS packet format is compatible with existing resolvers, which eases the transition (for example, someone could use the new system without installing anything, by trusting a Namecoin resolving server) 2. It uses less space for the common use case -…

Post by nextparadigms » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 2:11 PM UTC

Post by dissident » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 2:38 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #14

dissident wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a replacement of existing DNS with some arbitrary JSON protocol, this is a P2P DNS called Namecoin which happens to use JSON. Arguably, the flexibility offered by JSON can allow for sophisticated technologies to emerge which can take advantage of this naming system. It's clear from the very article of this submission that this is the case. For instance, the I2P fields are combined in a structure that best…

which happens to use JSON But that's my point: why? I'm not saying they should implement a DNS root, I'm saying I don't see the benefit in using a new format, when: 1. The DNS packet format is compatible with existing resolvers, which eases the transition (for example, someone could use the new system without installing anything, by trusting a Namecoin resolving server) 2. It uses less space for the common use case -…