Topic: A case AGAINST merging Namecoin and Bitcoin mining [Converted to SUPPORT!] - page 3. (Read 9781 times)

No, you can mine NMC by itself if you desire. Plus there's no way for Tor to support Namecoin, Namecoin will support Tor instead. The Tor project doesn't have to do anything, unless by "full support" you mean buying a Namecoin domain for every hidden service that asks for one.


Namecoin is intended as a currency as well so it has the same security needs of Bitcoin.

As far as I understood it (and the wiki points out) You can mine only NMC or only BTC just fine, so you do NOT need both blockchains complete if merged mining is possible.
NMC can be double spent just like BTC - if you want a domain name, just re-mine everything since that block and claim it. One of the bigger BTC pools could even do that, considering NMC difficulty is so low.

While I like the idea of 2 for 1 mining, I think merging the 2 projects is a mistake. The only argument I can make in favor of this merge is greed. Bitcoin is something special and starting to gain mainstream acceptance. Don't pollute the project by merging it with anything that will make an extra buck. It will most likely only destroy both projects, or at least devalue them to the point where they're basically worthless. Not to mention, what about when pussycoins come to the market, or nutsackcoins? Who decides what can/can't be merged? It's starting to make bitcoin sound a whole lot less attractive to me. Don't go down that rabbit hole.

Tell me if I'm wrong - mining BTC and NMC together creates a dependency on the BTC block chain for NMC.  If that's true, then if Tor were to include full support for NMC, then in order to cryptographically validate the NMC block chain, suddenly Tor must acquire and care about the enormous and exponentially growing Bitcoin block chain... a huge expense for a purely theoretical benefit.  Not to mention what could happen if Bitcoin makes fundamental changes to the way it works to support growth, such as pruning unneeded records off the Bitcoin block chain (which could certainly include records stuffed there for the sake of NMC).

The NMC doesn't need hash strength the same way Bitcoin does.  If NMC isn't intended for use as money, then the possibility of double spending is less of a concern and less attractive to an attacker.  The extent of disruption in the event of a >50% CPU attack would mainly concern the ability to register new names.

Mining BTC and NMC together strengthens the NMC network. Any bitcoin style blockchain is only as strong as it's difficulty. If you can find a method to increase the difficulty (= hash rate) this is something you should do and that increases the value of this "currency" (=block chain).

Tor has nothing to do with mining, Namecoins can still be used for what you proposed - the only difference if they can be mined at the same time with Bitcoins would be that they can be use in a more secure way.

An extended specification for the Namecoin DNS namespace is being worked on which will include support for Tor, I2P and Freenet.

http://dot-bit.org/Domain_names

I would like to propose a case AGAINST the idea of shared Namecoin/Bitcoin mining.

The main reason I think Namecoin and Bitcoin should be kept apart, is perhaps to preserve the potential future value of Namecoin.  It has little to do with Bitcoin.

Merging the mining of Namecoin and Bitcoin is a bit of a marriage.  Namecoin perhaps has a better marriage candidate: Tor.

Why Tor?

Well, for one, the idea of a peer-to-peer DNS registry isn't something the world is asking for.  While recent domain name seizures have spooked many of us, they haven't really created any serious practical problems that need solving.  Very few websites are candidates to get their domain names seized, and those that are can protect themselves simply by registering themselves in other top level domains.  (This is something that they'd have to do under the Namecoin plan anyway).

On the other hand, Tor lacks a working DNS system, and forces people to use cryptic URLs to access its hidden services.  Just look at the Silk Road - their address is nonsense characters, and so they suffer from attacks like people hijacking links to them and sending people to phishing lookalikes, in the hopes that random characters XXX will look close enough to YYY that few will notice the difference.  On the other hand, if Tor had a cryptographically sound DNS system, it could offer addresses like "silkroad.onion".

The Tor project itself says about domain names: that you can pick any two of the following: decentralized, secure, memorable.  And goes on to explain why enjoying all three is likely impossible, referring to "Zooko's conjecture".  Namecoin could just give the Tor project all three.  Tor project even invites it to happen: at the same link, it says: "Perhaps one day somebody will implement a Petname design for hidden service names?"

As a separate project, Namecoin has a fighting chance of actually being proposed, adopted, and integrated into the Tor infrastructure, as well as any other anonymizing project.  If it were married to the Bitcoin block chain, I just don't see how such an integration would be as attractive.

tl;dr - The world isn't demanding a .bit domain just to get access to Wikileaks when Google gets them there just fine.  Tor could really use a good DNS system, but marrying it to the Bitcoin blockchain will serve to make it unsuitable.