James,

Thanks for the observations. I too think there are some issues around 
blockchain. The issues around Bitcoin itself are why I separate out the 
payments mechanism issue (and speculating in digital commodities :-( ) 
from the searching the menu of technologies for maintaining an ownership 
and ownership transactions ledger. Also, I note that when, early on, I 
called Bitcoin a fiat digital currency I almost got hung by the Bitcoin 
crowd.

Sam

On 2015-06-11 4:40 PM, James Gannon wrote:
> Namecoin is essentially an alternative root solution so it wouldn't solve the public DNS issues that the EWG looked at I don't think.
> Bitcoin could be used to pay for a domain anonymously in either system yes.
>
> Also namecoin had some serious security flaws and still to this day is risky in my opinion http://www.coindesk.com/namecoin-flaw-patch-needed/
>
> I think that using the block chain is not where research in this area should go, I think we should take some of the concepts and learnings from what we have seen in bitcoin and apply it to the existing concept of DNS, things like distributed root tables, continuous verification, peer based trust relationships are all concepts that are in early maturity due to bitcoin but lets not jump on the 'bitcoin is the solution to all problems' bandwagon. Bitcoin solved a single issue and was never designed to do more than that, jumping onto it and frankensteining new ideas can lead to some serious flaws in concept and implementation.
>
> As you can probably guess I'm 50/50 on Bitcoin and its realism and goals on the greater economic markets. I was a very early adopter back in the day before it took off and like many got burned during its infancy which drove me away to being an observer for a number of years.
> But also I might be bitter about the cold wallet I lost that had about 20BTC in it that I lost many years ago (Worth over 20k at the top of the market) so take my comments with a large pinch of salt! :-)
>
> -James
>
> -
[rest deleted]