If it was just erased and not overwritten this may get it back.

https://www.piriform.com/recuva

Not a problem, keep using it and it will get better.

I think you mean transaction, not translation.  So how would you make sure the timestamp (time signature) was accurate?  Without a way to confirm this, anyone can put old timestamps on their transactions to increase their power.

A major purpose of the blockchain is as a way to publicly determine the order in which transactions were made.

This may be overly ambitious (if that's a term we use around here), but what about reserving '.' as a subdomain delimiter, and '/' as a protocol and path delimiter, but allowing any other character sequence as a domain, no designated TLD required.  We could at least temporarily reserve/block all existing or already reserved TLDs until they can be ported to the BitShares DNS system, and the initial plugin would just propagate requests to those TLDs into the traditional DNS system.

To minimize loss of stake as a barrier to entry, it would be good if there were a way to seed the system with a snapshot of current domain ownership, but I don't yet see a good way to do this.

Quote from: bytemaster on March 17, 2014, 03:27:57 pm

Quote from: Agent86 on March 17, 2014, 01:59:04 pm

To clarify my previous idea, I think if you said accounts lose stake at a rate that is directly proportional to coin days accumulated that this would mean big accounts should move more often to use up their CD.  But overall, if everyone is just holding their money and moving it back and forth at the threshold time all accounts would retain the same respective value.

I'm envisioning that accounts are mining the blocks that include their transactions.

Basically, if you are trying to attack the network by accumulating coin days, the more you accumulate the faster you lose.

Actually, it is the opposite.   As coindays accumulate your mining difficulty falls and your mining reward grows.   The goal is to motivate with a carrot rather than a stick.

My proposal was not related to mining rewards.  You have already suggested a "stick" that is necessary: people must transact once per year or face a 5% penalty and loss of "voting rights."  I am proposing a better stick. (please see my original post preceding the one you quoted)
I may need to draw up something to more clearly demonstrate it or run a test to see how it would play out.  I don't demand you spend time on it if it doesn't strike you as valuable.  I admit I need to do some more reading to more clearly understand your proposed mining rewards.
Incidentally, carrots and sticks are functionally equivalent; you can call it punishing inactivity or rewarding activity but it's the same as I'm sure you are aware.

Forcing a yearly transaction can also fight blockchain bloat by guaranteeing that the last year of blocks represents the full balance of all addresses.

Quote from: CWEvans on March 16, 2014, 10:17:06 pm

BitGoxGold, BitKitcoGold, BitBob'sMattressGold, etc. would all be different assets that should reflect market participants' trust in Gox, Kitco, Bob, etc.

I'm taking special note of the "should" in that quote. I take it that the social consensus is that BitBob'sMattressGold would be 1:1 interchangeable with real Bob'sMattressGold should Bob ever want to trade the comfort of his physical version for some of the advantages of its digital representative.

Yes, I would think so, but the market at large (apart from Bob) is unlikely to value either BitBob'sMattressGold or Bob'sMattressGold very highly or consistently, unless Bob has a truly impeccable reputation.

For it to be completely mainstream I think either the operating system or the browser needs to integrate with BitShares DNS by default.  Without this, our audience is limited to people who are comfortable installing browser extensions, which seriously should be almost everyone by now, but probably isn't.

Wouldnt it be necessary that some organization (more abstractly a consensus about who handles it) that handles a domain name register to acknoledge this system?
I know Namecoin or BTS DNS are supposed to replace exactly this. But is the availability of the system as such enough. Doesnt it need some "political effort" to make this the system that everyone agrees upon worldwide?

In short, no.  This system can exist in parallel with current systems, and software will be made available to use it.  Eventually once it's become popular enough the major browser vendors may provide integration with this system by default, but it will work fine without any support from existing DNS "authorities."