All BitcoinTalk forum posts (539, SNI numbers 5–543), from "Welcome to the new Bitcoin forum!" to "Added some DoS limits, removed safe mode (0.3.19)" (Part 4 of 4)
Document text
Research, not advice. Part of the Bitcoin research archive (October 2026). Claims labelled unverified, contested or fringe are reported, not endorsed; statuses of bills and rules are as of the date checked. Government, court and patent records are public domain; the research notes are CC BY 4.0.
in this discussion there's already a lot of housekeeping data required. It will be much easier if you can freely use all the space you need without worrying about paying fees for expensive space in Bitcoin's chain. Some transactions: Changing the IP record. Name change. A domain object could entitle you to one domain, and you could change it at will to any name that isn't taken. This would encourage users to free up names they don't want anymore. Generated domains start out blank and the miner sells it to someone who changes it to what they want. Renewal. Could be free, or maybe require consuming another domain object to renew. In that case, domain objects (domaincoins?) could represent the right to own a domain for a year. The spent fee goes to the miners in the next block fee. 538. Re: BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin Poster: satoshi · Date: 2010-12-10T20:19:39Z · Thread: BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin Original: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28963#msg28963 SNI: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/538/ I agree. All transactions, IP changes, renewals, etc. should have some fee that goes to the miners. You might consider a certain amount of work to generate a domain, instead of a fixed total circulation. The work per domain could be on a schedule that grows with Moore's Law. That way the number of domains would grow with demand and the number of people using it. 539. Re: BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin Poster: satoshi · Date: 2010-12-11T13:08:30Z · Thread: BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin Original: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg29159#msg29159 SNI: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/539/ @dtvan: all 3 excellent points. 1) IP records don't need to be in the chain, just do registrar function not DNS. And CA problem solved, neat. 2) Pick one TLD, .web +1. 3) Expiration and significant renewal costs, very important. Quote from: joe on December 11, 2010, 10:53:58 AM However, thinking more about this now I support inclusion of additional coinbases / tracking systems in the main network. The reason for doing this is so as not to water down CPU power into multiple networks. We want one strong network, so the network should be versatile. Avoiding CPU power fragmentation is no longer a reason. Independent networks/chains can share CPU power without sharing much else. See: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696 and http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28715#msg28715 540. Re: Bitcoin and buffer overflow attacks Poster: satoshi · Date: 2010-12-11T13:32:37Z · Thread: Bitcoin and buffer overflow attacks Original: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2208.msg29165#msg29165 SNI: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/540/ Quote from: da2ce7 on December 11, 2010, 05:49:22 AM direct to IP address transfers seems like a obvious surface area to attack. If you ever find anyone who turned it on. It's disabled by default. Quote from: witchspace on December 11, 2010, 09:59:40 AM There is no way to be absolutely sure that there are no buffer overflow attacks. Although it would help to implement the client in a language that doesn't have buffer overflows because it checks array indices (Python, Java, C#, ...). It's all STL. There are almost no buffers. 541. Re: minimalistic bitcoin client on D language? Poster: satoshi · Date: 2010-12-11T22:07:04Z · Thread: minimalistic bitcoin client on D language? Original: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2188.msg29259#msg29259 SNI: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/541/ Quote from: Hal on December 11, 2010, 08:08:45 PM I'd like to hear some specific criticisms of the code. To me it looks like an impressive job, although I'd wish for more comments. Now I've mostly studied the init, main, script and a bit of net modules. This is some powerful machinery. That means a lot coming from you, Hal. Thanks. 542. Re: PC World Article on Bitcoin Poster: satoshi · Date: 2010-12-11T23:39:16Z · Thread: PC World Article on Bitcoin Original: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2216.msg29280#msg29280 SNI: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/542/ It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us. 543. Added some DoS limits, removed safe mode (0.3.19) Poster: satoshi · Date: 2010-12-12T18:22:33Z · Thread: Added some DoS limits, removed safe mode (0.3.19) Original: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2228.msg29479#msg29479 SNI: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/543/ There's more work to do on DoS, but I'm doing a quick build of what I have so far in case it's needed, before venturing into more complex ideas. The build for this is version 0.3.19. - Added some DoS controls As Gavin and I have said clearly before, the software is not at all resistant to DoS attack. This is one improvement, but there are still more ways to attack than I can count. I'm leaving the -limitfreerelay part as a switch for now and it's there if you need it. - Removed "safe mode" alerts "safe mode" alerts was a temporary measure after the 0.3.9 overflow bug. We can say all we want that users can just run with "-disablesafemode", but it's better just not to have it for the sake of appearances. It was never intended as a long term feature. Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain. Builds: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.19/