ESS price is up % in the last 24 hours. It has a circulating supply of Million ESS coins and a max supply of Billion. Hotbit is the current most active market trading it. In order to explore addresses and transactions, you may use block explorers such as feuerwehr-matzenbach.de and feuerwehr-matzenbach.de The latest tweets from @bitcointalk. Essentia (ESS) Get current token price, ICO price and other information about Essentia - Description, Charts, Market cap, ICO details and more. BTC $ 27, % ETH $ %.
Ess bitcointalkEssentia Airdrop » Claim 25 free ESS tokens (~ $)
Click on join airdrop and submit your email 3. Verify your email 4. Join Telegram group 4. Join whitelist to verify your account 5. Complete at least 3 tasks. Medium required. Airdrop is expired Links are broken Other issue.
Please note that these are only notifications. We can't reply. If you have any question you would like to receive an answer please send us an email to support airdrops. Claim free crypto. Step-by-Step Guide: 1. Don't forget to join our Telegram channel , follow us on Facebook and subscribe our newsletter to receive new airdrops!
Requirements: Telegram required Join group. Quote from: kiba on December 02, , AM. Quote from: tyler on December 02, , AM. How would domain name renewal work? I assumed you would have the domain name forever without further fee. After all, we don't pay an annual fee to keep our bitcoins working.
The fees could come from domain name transfers, and of course the generation of new domain names. Quote from: ribuck on December 02, , PM. Quote from: kiba on December 02, , PM.
Eventually, you get a long string of really good domain name that can't be used forever. It's the same as with bitcoins, it just makes the remaining names more valuable. It doesn't necessary make other domain names more valuable. The loss of sex.
I don't argue from a matter of principle, just from a personal preference that I would prefer non-expiring but losable domain names, compared to ones that must be renewed regularly or lost to others. Social hacking and some other generally minor hacking by somebody with just some casual knowledge about computers is all that is really necessary at the moment to change most domain registrations or "steal" a domain.
Or all domains expire yearly and will need to be regenerated, but if you send it to yourself before it ends you get to keep it. Like this we fix the issue of lost domains and allow dropping old names for free. Quote from: bober on December 02, , PM. Its like bitcoins but time based old domains get freed up after days, if you want to keep it just send it to someone or to yourself.
What we want to change is the registrar function, which keeps track of who owns each name. Of course they have to be new names that were not in earlier blocks. As with Bitcoin, transactions would be broadcast and incorporated into the next block by miners. Is this what people have in mind?
That's very clearly expressed, thank you Hal. What you describe is almost exactly what I have in mind. Additionally, I would allow the domain name itself to be subsequently changed to any other untaken name: Quote. Quote from: Hal on December 04, , PM. It sounds like something to really get my teeth into even though I got a couple of other good ideas I'd like to try. Besides, it sounds like there is some real interest to get this going sooner rather than later among many in the Bitcoins community.
Sorry for being too lazy to read all previous posts But has anybody actually proposed using bitcoin algorithms to create decentralized DNS to Peter Sunde yet? Quote from: Anonymous on December 05, , AM. As far as I know the argument against using bitcoin is that if you lost your keys to access the domain you would not be able to recover them.
How does bitdns get around that? Quote from: kiba on December 05, , AM. There are others into the subject of a P2P dns as well, Peter Sunde former spokesman of the pirate bay was also talking about this a couple of days ago. Quote from: balboah on December 05, , AM.
Quote from: Anonymous on December 05, , PM. I say we prove everyone wrong and do our own thing. Centralisation is a big steaming bag of FAIL. Quote from: kiba on December 05, , PM. Quote from: em3rgentOrdr on December 05, , PM. Best way to get the BitDNS system running off the ground? Adapt the bitcoin source code? Quote from: kiba on December 04, , AM.
Quote from: ribuck on December 05, , PM. Adapting the bitcoin source code is probably the only practical way for us to get this running. But first I would like to see us produce a brief white paper setting out the design principles, and a non-technical FAQ. Speed is of the essence if we're going to show.
What kind of time-frame are we talking about here in terms of getting at least a "proof of concept" project going? Writing up a white paper?
It would be nice and if you want to start that I would be willing to contribute to the content, but I would rather be programming right now at least to come up with a rough mock-up of the idea.
Are we going to use SourceForge? I would like to be looped into this project. I think that something like BitDNS can provide the intrinsic "use value" for bitcoin. I'm a firm believe that bitcoin in its current state is a solution looking for a specific problem. Perhaps a distributed dns is that "problem.
Quote from: chaord on December 05, , PM. Here are some early tasks that fall on the "non-documentation" side, in case you or anyone else is interested. Then register the ". Do we care? Quote from: kiba on December 06, , AM.
When in doubt, remove human elements. Adopt certainty of computer software code over uncertainty of judges. Complicated rules invite gaming and abuse. I suggest tahoe lafs if you are looking for a database for storage. Quote from: Anonymous on December 06, , AM. Quote from: kiba on December 06, , PM. Yes, the core developers should be focused on the network and the protocol.
I am making it my project to write a BitDNS client. I don't need the bitcoins. I just want to help so that the core developers can focus on the important stuff. Quote from: ribuck on December 06, , PM. Before we go too far down the track, can we agree on a project name? How about BitDomains, or DomainChain? The revolutionary thing is The domain name block chain.
Anyway, I have registered domainchain. But I won't object if people prefer another name. Quote from: chaord on December 06, , PM. I would like to propose the following specification for actual name of the domain itself Some possible domain names would be "excluded" from this schema and held in common such as excluding domains named "com", "net", "edu".
I like DomainChain as well. I would also argue against any particularly special attachment to bitcoins, what would the purpose of that be except to hopefully promote bitcoin?
I prefer to allow it to be a separate market in it's own right. With people able to pay for domains from those who've managed to generate them using whatever payment method they want to agree on.
Do we have a wiki yet? Quote from: bencoder on December 06, , PM. I don't know how to do this on IRC, but can someone create a bitcoin-domainchain chatroom or something so that we can get some real time discussion going? Here is an idea for how miners can get paid. Let us start with a fork of Bitcoin. We will start a new block chain just like Bitcoin did two years ago.
There will be coins in this chain, which I will call bitdnscoins. People can pay bitdnscoins to each other via transactions in the BitDNS block chain, just like with Bitcoin. Block miners get 50 bitdnscoins. However in addition to bitdnscoin transactions there would also be domain name transactions. Here is the main idea: at any time a bitdnscoin can be converted into a new domain name registration via a special transaction. This uses up the bitdnscoin and it can't be used again.
There would also be 'maintenance' domain name transactions where an existing domain name is transferred to a new owner or has other data fields changed. Bitdnscoins represent the right to register a new domain name. They are valuable for this reason. You would acquire them by mining, or more commonly by buying them, with Bitcoins, dollars, etc. To register a new name you need a bitdnscoin.
And the incentive for miners to include transactions? Same as for Bitcoin: transaction fees. Registering a new domain name costs 1 bitdnscoin. But you can pay more, and the excess goes to the miner. Pay 1. That's the incentive. Quote from: Hal on December 06, , PM. When you lookup foo.
It has some caching and local data, but mostly it just asks a DNS server for the answer. You have one or more DNS servers configured as part of your network setup, and these servers respond to domain name lookup queries either directly, or by initiating their own search of the domain name system. Obviously we want existing name lookups still to work. Broadly speaking, then, we would change the software to first check if a name is registered in the BitDNS system, and if not, to fall back to the regular handling.
Resolvers are different for every OS, so there's more work. I don't even know if the resolver logic can be changed on Windows. Plus this code is going to need to be tracking the BitDNS block chain, and not every end user should have to do this. Other 'alternative' DNS systems do it like this, with one or more special DNS servers that know about their extra domains.
Whether these names all have a distinguishing TLD ". As I understand it, when a DNS server looks up foo. This tells what name servers are authoritative for foo.
We would intercept this first step, and use the BitDNS code to find the authoritative name servers. Paranoids could run their own name servers locally and track the block chain. All the usual optimizations of DNS in terms of caching, distribution, etc. Quote from: em3rgentOrdr on December 06, , PM. That sounds nice. However, I was always uncomfortable with how block miners get 50 coins, and slowly halves. It confuses people and makes them uneasy. The reason for halving bitcoins over time does not really exist for bitdnscoins.
My points exactly. The only real problem I see is that it sets up a situation where this kind of currency could supplant the main Bitcoin for intrinsic value.
Not overnight, but gradually. About , changes occur per day, divided equally between creation, expiration, and transfers. If we create only 50 domains per block, 6 blocks per hour, that is domain names per day. At that rate it would take like 50 years to create million domains.
So it seems necessary to make names faster. Quote from: Hal on December 07, , AM. I would like to ask for some clarification on exactly what we are proposing here. From reading this lengthy thread, I gather that we are proposing: A decentralized domain registrar that maps a friendly human readable name ie: chaord.
Rather than mining bitcoins, you mine top-level address rights. Is this correct? Am I understanding all this correctly? If so, it seems as if in this brave new digital world, bitcoins BTC represent a commodity like gold, and domaincoins DCC represent real estate. Lastly, I'm sure this has been discussed, but is there any way that the two system can be combined? Can the domaincoin system accomplish all things bitcoins can, in addition to domain registration, or no?
IMO the best of both worlds would be if, somehow not sure how , the domain coin system could use bitcoins as its underlying backing or vice versa. Honestly, I feel that something like DomainCoins is the "missing link" that this community is searching for. Because the data behind DomainCoins actually represents something an IP address mapping , I think this could be the use-value that something like bitcoin needs to propel it to success!
Quote from: chaord on December 07, , AM. Wait, I am a bit confused. Alternative currency for DomainChain? Oh, these represent addresses? Because both currencies tend to be anonymous, it is hard to make the two transfers in a coordinated way. If the two are anonymous to each other, it seems there must be a trusted third party like a reputable exchange.
It seems hard to do peer to peer. Quote from: kiba on December 07, , AM. Quote from: Anonymous on December 07, , AM. At any rate, do we have enough information that's agreed so that the core hackers can develop right now? Could ip addresses themselves be managed by this system? The ipchain would prevent anyone having duplicate addresses. This removes central control of ip address allocation and the ability to track individual machines. Ipv6 has a privacy issue doesn't it?
They stuffed ipv4 because address allocation became a scarce resource by bad management. IPv6, on the other hand, has bits of address space, enough to provide a billion-billion addresses for each square meter of the earth's surface. How one could ever route that many addresses is an interesting question, but at least IPv6 will never run out. As you might expect, the address field is so huge that the IETF didn't know how to assign it. So, in a move to get buy-in from established industry standards bodies, the right-most 64 bits were designated to contain EUI format information.
Included in EUI are two interesting pieces of information: the registered manufacturer of your NIC card and your bit Ethernet address. Every packet you send out onto the public Internet using IPv6 has your fingerprints on it. And unlike your IP address under IPv4, which you can change, this address is embedded in your hardware. We could co-opt the democratic national convention lmao. This is essentially the same issue just thought through from another perspective.
Right now I think it is about million "bitcoins" to the smallest unit as defined in the Bitcoin protocol. We really don't need that many decimal places even for trade purposes. I still like the uint64 structure used in the Bitcoin protocol, but with a mild sort of inflation happening to the currency relative to Bitcions I don't see any major deflationary pressure pushing the value down like I see for Bitcoins.
Again, I am not an economist and this is going to take some hard economic theory and guessing which way even this currency might go in that perspective. The only other "currency" to make a real comparison about here is the coins on the test network, and the main thing there is that those coins aren't being traded Anything is better than buying another domain from godaddy. Whats the general plan here?
Won't this make the first blocks incredible valuable and later blocks less valuable as the goodness of remaining names declines? Maybe it should start really low 1?
Quote from: em3rgentOrdr on December 07, , AM. Remember, we can't let those. Well before starting coding, let's make sure we have the protocol clearly written out. Also, there is no need for fractional bitdnscoins since it doesn't make too much sense to own one-tenth of a domain name. Keep in mind that people can use fiat money or even bitcoins when trading unitary bitdnscoins, incase they need to make a trade of two domain names with unequal subjective valuations.
I'm not sure how it would work to only create one coin per block. Would this only buy the creation of one domain name? The reason I like the idea of fractional coins is it would give more flexibility in transaction fees.
If it costs one coin to register a domain, it might make sense that a good size for the transaction fee would be fractional. The exchanges might really appreciate at least some fractional quantities to play with, although that could also be internal to the exchange itself.
The real advantage is for some granularity in terms of competing miners which might want to snag a few additional registrations. It would also help in terms of setting up a per-kilobyte charge for people throwing stuff into the coin transactions too. Attacks on the network can also happen through filling up coin transaction information with useless junk, and charging a fee for that can help stop or at least slow down such a flood attack and at least put cost to such an attack that must be borne by the person making the transaction.
Such a charge may require at least some fractional coins, even if it isn't nanocoins necessarily. If we could dump this idea of another currency, I'd be all for it.
I just don't see how to do that though. Umm, each coin stand for one domain. However, I don't think we need transaction fee. This is not bitcoin after all. The incentive for 50 coins each block they generate ARE the transaction fee. I am worried about people who spam change to the DNS database? Let me this straight: so we use fractional coins to prevent network spamming? Or is it bitcoin? This is another currency that is essentially identical to Bitcoin, but with a few tweaks and miners more concentrated on working with domain records.
We could put this into the main Bitcoin protocol, but then we would have to change the Bitcoin miners as well. No, that coin is received by the miner processing the transactions and handled just like coin transaction fees are right now in Bitcoin.
It's been helpful that you are so willing to lay down your logic so that some of us can play "catch up" as we wrap our heads around this project. Satoshi needs to be in the middle of all of this discussion. Bitcoin, as it currently exists, really doesn't deal with this kind of issue. I completely agree here. Even though his "blessing" is not necessary, it could potentially save a lot of time and effort if we can at least get Satoshi involved in the discussion.
Does anyone here have enough of a working relationship with Satoshi? I know he is quite evasive these days. We need a wiki real bad so Rhorning can write down what he means.
Would introducing extra overhead into the existing chain make this cumbersome and maybe introduce vulnerabilities into the financial system? After all who wants to download a massive block chain just to buy or transfer a domain name? Is it enough that a parallel domain chain is certified as the way to get a bitdomain? Do we want developers concentrating on other applications rather than the core purpose of bitcoin? It seems this could be a way for bitcoin to have its own "app" store of different block chain purposes.
Quote from: ribuck on December 07, , PM. Yes I'll do this. Don't panic! But first, I've thought of a design for DomainChain that is simple, elegant, powerful, and very easily integrated with Bitcoin. I just need to think it through a bit more before I post it here so that I don't make a complete fool of myself.
Quote from: theymos on December 07, , PM. Trying to predict the exact numbers required is equal to central economic planning, and pointless. I've thought of a design for DomainChain that is simple, elegant, powerful, and very easily integrated with Bitcoin. OK, here goes. My design for DomainChain builds on many of the ideas expressed here already. My main contribution is to remove "generation" from the design.
It turns out that relying only on transaction fees makes everything very much simpler, and makes it easy to piggyback DomainChain onto Bitcoin. Here's a quick summary: Bitcoin already allows for a text "payload" to be included with a transaction. Any bitcoin transaction that is sent with the right payload becomes a domain name registration. To register a domain name, just send any amount of bitcoin to yourself, with a special payload.
This payload identifies itself as a DomainChain payload, and contains the desired domain name plus the IP address of the authoritative name server s. If no-one else already has that name registered, it's yours.
To transfer a domain name to someone else, just send them the associated bitcoin actually any part of the associated transaction will do. The GUI will let you do this in terms of "domain names" rather than in terms of "coins". To change the authoritative name server s , just send the associated bitcoin to yourself with a payload that identifies the new authoritative name server s Registrations last forever unless you terminate them by sending that bitcoin to yourself with a payload that is a DomainChain "cancel" message You can register a domain name with the smallest convenient amount of bitcoins currently 0.
However, miners will impose transaction fees which increase as the block size increases. This provides a disincentive to registration spammers To resolve lookup a domain name, the block chain is scanned for the most recent valid transaction for that domain name. In principle, anyone can run a DomainChain resolver, but in practice most users will use a DNS service that is DomainChain-aware Advantages: Provides domain name registration with the same level of pseudonymity as Bitcoin Holds registration data in a tamper-resistant distributed manner Strengthens Bitcoin by providing additional economic incentive for generators because they will be able to charge transaction fees for domain name transactions Can be implemented much more quickly than any other scheme that has been proposed so far Existing bitcoin clients are unaffected.
If they receive coins that are associated with a domain name registration they will see them as coins. No modification is needed. Disadvantages: I'm sure you'll let me know of the disadvantages. Implementation: 1. Patch the standard bitcoin client. Run it on the bitcoin test network.
The patched client will have a separate panel for domain names that are associated with bitcoins. These bitcoins will not show on the standard panel, nor will they be included in the total balance available to spend. On the DomainChain panel, instead of a "send coin" button there will be buttons for "register a new name", "change nameservers", "transfer a name" and "abandon a name". There will also be a scrolling list of domain names together with their nameservers. Write a program that scans the block chain to determine the authoritative domain name servers for a given domain name.
Patch a standard open source domain name server to consult the output of this program as part of its name resolution. If it works well, persuade Satoshi to allow these transactions in the main network. Of course, it would be technically possible to run it on a new network with a new block chain, but who wants competing currencies?
There's obviously a lot to be fleshed out, but I think the design is workable and easy to implement. The DomainChains payloads could look like this: Registration with and without nameservers : Code:. DomainChains my-domain. Ribuck: I believed that is a brilliant hack. We finally have intrinsic value for bitcoin! RHorning, The one objection of yours that I can't address is the one about "shoving useless data into the transaction block". This is something for others to decide, and at this time I would respect whatever Satoshi said.
But we should not be concerned about "opening the pandora's box" because the box is already open and lots of people are going to look inside in the future. That "problem" if it is a problem is for the owners of Pandora's Block Chain to decide. What I suggest we do is to try out DomainChain on the test network, and see what bitcoiners think of it when it's able to be experimented with.
I'm sure we'll get feedback on whether or not it's welcome in the live block chain. Transactions really ought to be about bitcion transfers from one person to another, and the purpose of the script is to permit flexibility in terms of the method used to secure that transfer. It may be possible that the nature of the scripting language itself may be changed to specifically exclude a "payload" being used in this fashion. Another huge disadvantage is that this really isn't any sort of system for registering domains in a secure fashion.
You might put into the "payload" any sort of in here, but there is no reason for anything or anybody to recognize this data. Two people trying to register the same domain simultaneously would have no real means to identify who actually has the domain with this system.
It was also pointed out that transaction records can be dropped. If your registration record is in one of those other transaction blocks, it is then lost. I haven't read your spec yet, but Wow, after a first readthrough of the spec by Theymos and Nanotube I am astonished by the similarities. And their spec is so much further developed. This is excellent! I will look through it in detail tomorrow as I've already spent way too much time on this today. My concern is that there would be a rush to grab hot domains.
I would expect that the first blocks generated with this system will all be maximum size and filled with the equivalent of sex. These domain names are worth millions of dollars, if the system succeeds. I suppose transaction fees would be enormous, otherwise miners will just fill blocks with their own registrations.
Ordinary transactions would be crowded out, if this were part of Bitcoin. Quote from: Hal on December 07, , PM. Do we have a consensus on nanotube's proposal? Any objection? Quote from: kiba on December 07, , PM. Some sort of expiration is required, preferably a short one the 52, blocks used currently in this spec is probably too big. Having a short expiration requires everyone to rebroadcast their messages, which solves two problems at once: - With an expiration of x , you can build a complete DNS database by downloading only the most recent x blocks.
Having an unlimited expiration would require you to download the entire block chain, which will eventually become several terabytes in size. The value of y is currently unknown, but I expect it to be between 5, and 52, Messages need to be rebroadcast at least this frequently to stay alive if you want to use the convenient one-coin-per-domain system.
Quote from: em3rgentOrdr on December 07, , PM. I read your draft bitcoin DNS spec Nanotube and theymous And it's fascinating that ribuck also came up with a very similar design independently. Then the only alternative is to go forward with a parallel but independent block chain, creating a second currency. Are we ok with that? In the doc, this appears like a Bitcoin transaction fee. The first example shows But tx fees go to miners.
Is it assumed that miners are the same as DNS servers? Or would there be a 2nd output, a fee to a particular DNS server to get it to register you, in addition to a tx fee to the miner? Are you allowing name changes of the main part of the domain? Like elephantfood. Or is this disallowed, in which case, exactly which kinds of name changes are allowed?
Would anyone who wants be able to run one of these special DNS servers, or do you envision there being relatively few of these? Thanks -. This is exciting stuff. The benefits of having an intrinsic value to bitcoin is inestimable and kills a lot of arguments against it.
I would like to hear satoshi's thoughts on this as forking the network is not a decision taken lightly. Is there a way to reserve the top domains at Alexa? I can see massive issues down the road if say google has their name squatted on. Doing this would bring a lot of goodwill towards bitcoin rather than having all the top companies against it. When a top company wishes to claim their name the profits could go to benefit bitcoin.
Is that a good plan? Quote from: Anonymous on December 08, , AM. Quote from: da2ce7 on December 08, , AM. Maybe we could have a 'time-lock' of about a week or so where you claim a domain, and if half of the network decides that that domain should be in the trust they can deny that request. Once the network is more established the minimum time-lock can be reduced. Quote from: kiba on December 08, , AM. I guess I'm missing the point of the fee other than as a way to provide an incentive for miners, and to put a little pain on the registrants involved here.
I think reserving the top alexa domains by seeding the genesis block with those "registrations" would be an excellent show of good faith towards the world at large. So in theory this is the perfect system for claiming a 'named address'. If I wanted to send a payment to 'theymos.
Or is my understanding wrong? This is all very fascinating stuff. While I think I grasp the fundamental differences between them, I am not confident to weigh in. Could I ask that someone more knowledgeable than I am on these matters create a table wiki? As Kiba pointed out, I am most excited for bitcoin to have it's intrinsic "use-value! Lastly, and this could be due to my lack of intimate knowledge of DNS, but will this work seamlessly with more secure DNS protocols as well? Also, is this designed to ultimately replace existing registrars or will this always be a "DomainShadow" system that is only used in the event of crisis like wikileaks attack, etc?
Overall, great work guys!!! Quote from: chaord on December 08, , AM. Quote from: theymos on December 08, , AM. And if you run your own server, you don't need to trust anyone! I can't see any of this becoming mainstream any time soon. You have to at least change your nameservers, and to get all of the security benefits you have to run a bunch of extra software all the time.
It should scale well, though, if it did go mainstream. Quote from: nanotube on December 08, , AM. Yes, coding need to be done soon. Repeating ad nauseum: Speed is of the essence. BitDns is not bitcoin. We already have a forked chain Get something working on the test network and prove your theories.
Other proposals envisioned a single new TLD like. Names can be changed when registered, but only from one TLD to another. You could change pics. I don't understand the motivation for this. It seems like something that would seldom be useful. I'm still confused about fees. I was assuming that fees would be paid to the DNS servers, for the service of acting as a gateway from the Bitcoin block chain to the DNS system.