- DMMS = dynamic-membership multiparty signature, i.e. an SPV proof. See the pegged sidechains white paper for details.
- Namecoin and BitShares are the example sidechains, but these could be any naming blockchain.
Okay, so here's how this would work:
example.bit is registered on Namecoin.
Control of example.bit is transferred to BitShares by locking the name in Namecoin and posting a DMMS to BitShares.
BitShares maintains a separate name database for different genesis blocks, so example.bit is still a .bit name, not a .p2p name (despite both being d/ namespace).
End users must have a Namecoin and BitShares client to resolve a .bit name that is controlled by the BitShares blockchain.
- Issue a renewal in BitShares. This is subject to miner fees in BitShares but not name fees.
- Post a DMMS of BitShares renewal in Namecoin. This is subject to miner fees and name fees.
- The BitShares DMMS must pass Namecoin name security rules, since it is a Namecoin name (name field has not changed, a la Michael Gronager's CoinSlayer attack).
- However, the BitShares DMMS need not pass Namecoin tx security rules, since it is a BitShares transaction (if BitShares is broken and the name is stolen, Namecoin will accept that reality).
- The renewal in Namecoin is effective from the most recent block with a timestamp before the timestamp in the BitShares block referenced by the DMMS. If the BitShares timestamp is invalid for the mining Namecoin block, then the DMMS is invalid.
Thoughts on this?