Poll On New Value Field Size

How large should the value field be?

1k
6
38%
2k
1
6%
2.5k
2
13%
3k
1
6%
4k
0
No votes
5k
6
38%
6k
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 16

phelix
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Poll On New Value Field Size

Post by phelix » Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:41 am

latest discussion: http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1163

Current size is 520 bytes due to a bug, should have been 1k

According to virtual_master the maximum expected key size is 2k

Note that the size is NOT directly related to the size of the blockchain as it is / will be cheaper to create two small txs than to create one large one (though it might make spamming slightly faster if you only run a single instance). The main thing this will do is allow for easier handling of large keys, many signatures, etc.. I am so sick of this discussion that if you post in this thread that a large value field will bloat the blockchain I will delete your post :p
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

virtual_master
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 12:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll On New Value Field Size

Post by virtual_master » Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:25 am

http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 3&start=40
This was the latest thread where we agreed on 5k to enable the maximal sized GPG key which is 4k.
phelix wrote: Consensus on size is still 5k.
:)
http://namecoinia.org/
Calendars for free to print: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF Protect the Environment with Namecoin: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF
BTC: 15KXVQv7UGtUoTe5VNWXT1bMz46MXuePba | NMC: NABFA31b3x7CvhKMxcipUqA3TnKsNfCC7S

khal
Site Admin
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 5:09 pm
os: linux

Re: Poll On New Value Field Size

Post by khal » Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:43 am

virtual_master wrote:http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 3&start=40
This was the latest thread where we agreed on 5k to enable the maximal sized GPG key which is 4k.
phelix wrote: Consensus on size is still 5k.
:)
I agree with our previous consensus :p

/voted
NamecoinID: id/khal
GPG : 9CC5B92E965D69A9
NMC: N1KHAL5C1CRzy58NdJwp1tbLze3XrkFxx9
BTC: 1KHAL8bUjnkMRMg9yd2dNrYnJgZGH8Nj6T

Register Namecoin domains with BTC
My bitcoin Identity - Send messages to bitcoin users
Charity Ad - Make a good deed without paying a cent

indolering
Posts: 800
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:26 pm
os: mac

Re: Poll On New Value Field Size

Post by indolering » Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:49 am

It's pretty easy to fit a decent resolution picture of a child into 7K. Moving from 1K to 5K makes that 3.5x cheaper.
DNS is much more than a key->value datastore.

biolizard89
Posts: 1979
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Poll On New Value Field Size

Post by biolizard89 » Mon Jan 20, 2014 5:16 am

indolering wrote:It's pretty easy to fit a decent resolution picture of a child into 7K. Moving from 1K to 5K makes that 3.5x cheaper.
Agreed, I have no problem with a larger size, but I think we should implement encryption before touching the value size. ryan-c is making progress on encryption if I understand correctly.

(And yes, I know it's theoretically possible to fit it into multiple names... but some people aren't that motivated, and perception/intent matters for both PR and legal purposes.)
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

khal
Site Admin
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 5:09 pm
os: linux

Re: Poll On New Value Field Size

Post by khal » Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:27 am

indolering wrote:It's pretty easy to fit a decent resolution picture of a child into 7K. Moving from 1K to 5K makes that 3.5x cheaper.
biolizard89 wrote:(And yes, I know it's theoretically possible to fit it into multiple names... but some people aren't that motivated, and perception/intent matters for both PR and legal purposes.)
We had evoked exponential costs for big data. Isn't it sufficient for the perception ?
NamecoinID: id/khal
GPG : 9CC5B92E965D69A9
NMC: N1KHAL5C1CRzy58NdJwp1tbLze3XrkFxx9
BTC: 1KHAL8bUjnkMRMg9yd2dNrYnJgZGH8Nj6T

Register Namecoin domains with BTC
My bitcoin Identity - Send messages to bitcoin users
Charity Ad - Make a good deed without paying a cent

indolering
Posts: 800
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:26 pm
os: mac

Re: Poll On New Value Field Size

Post by indolering » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:10 pm

khal wrote:
biolizard89 wrote:(And yes, I know it's theoretically possible to fit it into multiple names... but some people aren't that motivated, and perception/intent matters for both PR and legal purposes.)
We had evoked exponential costs for big data. Isn't it sufficient for the perception ?
Reality and perception need to align and an easily accessible image of a child being raped is bad, even if it would be easier and cheaper to store said picture on Freenet.

I'm being serious here: we shouldn't increase the value size past 2K unless we can clamp down on the content being stored. Correct me if I am wrong, but since a key is already just highly compressed data we can't do anything to restrict the content. If someone needs a keysize past 2K they should link to it and stick a hash signature in the value field. Everyone is already switching to ECC which will never need to get above .5K.

I'm also not worried about increasing the size in the future, after we have established credibility in the public eye. But if the first news report most people hear about Namecoin is that it's a new distributed datastore for child pronography ... well, consider Freenet vs Tor.
DNS is much more than a key->value datastore.

domob
Posts: 1122
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Poll On New Value Field Size

Post by domob » Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:25 am

indolering wrote:
khal wrote:
biolizard89 wrote:(And yes, I know it's theoretically possible to fit it into multiple names... but some people aren't that motivated, and perception/intent matters for both PR and legal purposes.)
We had evoked exponential costs for big data. Isn't it sufficient for the perception ?
Reality and perception need to align and an easily accessible image of a child being raped is bad, even if it would be easier and cheaper to store said picture on Freenet.

I'm being serious here: we shouldn't increase the value size past 2K unless we can clamp down on the content being stored. Correct me if I am wrong, but since a key is already just highly compressed data we can't do anything to restrict the content. If someone needs a keysize past 2K they should link to it and stick a hash signature in the value field. Everyone is already switching to ECC which will never need to get above .5K.

I'm also not worried about increasing the size in the future, after we have established credibility in the public eye. But if the first news report most people hear about Namecoin is that it's a new distributed datastore for child pronography ... well, consider Freenet vs Tor.
I agree here - personally I'm not sure whether we really need such large sizes at all (just store key fingerprint), but if we change it, we should first implement value encryption. But I think this is already the plan, right?
BTC: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/

namecoiner
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:04 pm
os: linux

Re: Poll On New Value Field Size

Post by namecoiner » Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:45 am

4k file size is very dangerous. I don't understand how they came to the evil idea in 1980 to develop FAT12.
In a porno video of this size 2 pixels could move around and that could be interpreted as a small child.
:lol:

phelix
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: Poll On New Value Field Size

Post by phelix » Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:43 pm

What about a compromise of 2.5k? That way we could still fit in a largish key with some additional data. It should be sufficient for most applications so the benefit from anything more is small.
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

Post Reply