Names clearly solve a different problem than that, but we still use them,
so they must be solving _some_ problem :p In this case they're a unique
identifier humans can remember after a bit of use and easily communicate to
each other with little room for error. Securely mapping them to public
keys
1) Generate sacrifice proof file using an app
2) Load file into browser
3) Surf
Where are the names in that design? I'm not sure where NameCoin comes into
this. The point of a sacrifice is it's an anonymous identity, there's no
point attaching a name to it.
BTW I keep phone numbers in an address
Fair enough, though people still manage okay with phone numbers. And a
decentralized naming system seems to come at great cost - with namecoin you
need the whole blockchain to resolve names without trust. Strip out a bell
and whistle - meaningfulness and transferability of names - and you get a
s
Interesting observation, thanks.
I'd think any competent implementation of such an identity scheme would not
involve end users directly handling randomized nonsense words, however. I
always imagined a sacrifice as being a file that you make with a GUI tool
and load into a browser extension.
On T
A couple more thoughts on this:
1) Both c and k can be kept if c is pronounced 'ch', giving ~10.9 bits per
phoneme.
2) An extra phoneme (4 encode 43 bits total) gives room to put extra
information into the name, e.g. the first 5 bits could be input as the key
to a PRP that permutes the last 38 bac
The location of a tx in the blockchain can be encoded in n=log2(h)+log2(t)
bits, where h is the block height, and t is the number of transactions in
the block. Currently h~250,000 and t~500, so n~27. A CVC phoneme encodes
~10.7 bits *, so a transaction today can be located in the blockchain with
6 matches
Mail list logo
