<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1z3hudzc49z68rrnax6ftcmztszyenus9u2d2z5dmt6008uhrxe6sagjjkv

Profile Code

nprofile1qqspgm7x3v2j3dr33e7ndy4ud39cpzve7gz79x4p2xa4a8hn7t3nvagpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds72v9m5

Publishing to

nostr.wine

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 02:50:09 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2011-12-20
🗒️ Summary of this message: Freenet could be a good fit for blockchain distribution due to its wider storage mechanisms and decentralization, according to a 2011 email from Bitcoin developer Wladimir. A specification for "btcfn" was created in 2010, but progress was slow. The features should be outsourced to established systems to hide traffic in the masses.
📝 Original message:On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:10:23 +0100
Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Probably would need to package the block chain with it, as downloading that
> over Tor takes ages and causes unnecessary load on the network...
I actually started a freenet plugin for blockchain distribution in summer (first rough steps only). Freenet seems really fit for this purpose since its mechanisms to provide wider storage (and thus faster requesting) for much-requested keys should help a lot here. Also freenet storage is decentralized, so that's another plus that goes hand-in-hand with bitcoin principles.
There's already a specification for "btcfn" which was done in 2010: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=55089.msg655410#msg655410
I stopped work on this because other people were supposedly working on it. I asked da2ce7 about it at the conference and he said progress was "slow".
I totally agree with the sentiment that these features should not be implemented in the bitcoin node itself but outsourced to the established systems, both because it's hard and also for "hiding traffic in the masses".
--
Nicolas Fischer <molec at gmx.de>