Topic: [announce] Namecoin - a distributed naming system based on Bitcoin (Read 596107 times)

Namecoin requires aggressive marketing and listing on a large exchange.
But there is no marketing team in namecoin, there are only developers.
It would be great to have a big sponsor for Nmc

Lol namechain the namecoin

Nope, its an Ethereum L2

https://x.com/BrantlyMillegan/status/1855813557323178067

"14 years of research and development and we have basically gone back to Namecoin", LOL

What is namechain from ENS?
Is it relate to namecoin?

Can anyone help to get Namecoin listed on binance?
 This great project is so under-marketed!

I think Biggest Problem for Namecoin is Exchange Exposure, since SouthXchange Shut Down!

CoinEX and Freiexchange aren't very popular since SBF crashed Crypto for a Season or 2!


And the other Exchange is some type of Russian Scam Site that doesn't Allow Withdrawing Namecoin!

In late 2022 - early 2023, we took on an intern (Robert) under Tor Project's umbrella to work on SocksTrace, a proxy leak mitigation tool with wide-ranging applicability across the privacy space. We're super excited to report that NLnet's NGI0 Core Fund has just awarded funding for Robert and me to continue development of SocksTrace. Contributing to the broader ecosystem is a core part of Namecoin's activities (we don't just maintain a blockchain).

https://www.namecoin.org/2024/10/21/sockstrace-funding-nlnet-ngi0-core.html

I've been here since 2013. i am not a programmer, but worked in IT.
i wish i could help. from what i see this is the problem, most of us can't.
while Bio has been managing the community,
there has been no leadership, no call to action, or too slow.
And most of us here can't program. We can only give some feedback

is there any kind of roadmap?

i don't see even the 10 month renewal period bug changed. it should be a year...
let alone more advanced features.
i suggest integrate privacy features, maybe optional,
just copy the code of other coins...
that will spark use of NMC and attract attention.


And don't get me started with "that would be a hard-fork..."
hello? have you seen ethereum? there is development and they mean it!

...well that sure was weird. I don't think anyone was expecting the first mention of Namecoin on HBO to be in the context of another ridiculous failed media attempt to dox Satoshi.

On a more substantive note, some people were probably curious what awesome things Rose and I got up to at the Tor Lisbon meeting (since there were no live streams). Happily, Tor Project has uploaded session notes (and my slides). I've added links here: https://www.namecoin.org/2024/07/24/tor-2024-gpn-22-monerokon-4-summary.html

Also, the NGI Assure program (operated in part by NLnet) has successfully concluded. NLnet has produced a very nice review of all the epic stuff that was funded by the program. We're right next to Qubes OS in the banner, what a cool neighbor! https://nlnet.nl/news/2024/20240919-NGI-Assure-Concluded.html

One last point until there is some response.

Nobody is accusing anybody associated with Namecoin of working for any police or spy group.

All that is being pointed out is that there are people who clearly are trying to prevent a decentralized internet from developing.

What are their motives? I ask.

A possibility /

"We have some strategic notion that this kind of thing has to be delayed until.........."

Another possibility /

"Drug dealers and all sorts of similar types would......"

Many other possibilities.

If somebody provides their rationale it is possible I might agree with it and say that yes, we should sabotage a free internet, or I might present an argument that convinces others that maybe a decentralized internet is better.

So developers would prefer not to list the donations over 10,000 Euros so far. That is understandable. Several are listed online, and a few more are implied including ongoing grants, and there are references to other sums, but I'll avoid that subject.

One other odd subject is the strange notion of namecoin developers that it is a good thing to have less people use namecoin.

Many rationales have been presented, none of which withstand scrutiny.

Most recently




Maybe somebody with dev skills will create a new Namecoin, and focus on making a better internet, instead of preventing it.
https://github.com/vinced/namecoin

Can a person ask how much funding namecoin has received?


~


~

Like many others who tried to improve Namecoin, sqbit deleted his or her posts and profile after you told him or her to move on.

~


That one is 29k euros. As I recall there were other donations. How many were there, if you don't mind?

Is there an effort to prevent namecoin from competing with govt/icann?

Let's start by looking at funding.

Is it okay to ask about funding?

Do you mind listing publicly all donations over 10,000 Euros "the Namecoin community" has received so far?

Is it unreasonable to ask where the money goes?

1) See number 3 below

2) You have driven away most namecoin supporters by pretending you are "the namecoin community".

3) Vinced was a bountyhunter not a visionary. But if Satoshi can be George Washington then sure, let's make vinced Thomas Jefferson. Make him spiritual advisor to the pope, give him a billion dollar yacht, an 11 inch dick and use a ouiji board to communicate with him.

4) Who is not going to compete with bitcoin? The namecoin community?

Namecoin is experimental software created for a payment. It's main improvement since it began is additional software created by domob. Numerous other people have sounded out creating more functionality, but "the namecoin community", both of you, or however many there are, shut them down.

What is your motive?

~~~


Are there any people willing to take a side on the issue?

Both sides have been represented from the beginning, but recently only one side is represented by devs.

Side 1 // devs //
Namecoin should not compete with bitcoin. Number of users is not important. Value of the coin is irrelevant to followers of the ethos, and those interested in the value of the coin should be discouraged.
/includes or parallels the belief that the 'main' internet should be centralized, and decentralized internets should not compete with the centralized one.

Side 2 // dissidents //
A widely used coin would attract more developers who would add features that could be useful in a decentralized internet such as internet over shortwave, and other things.

~~~~

The main political factor is the simple reality that the West cannot compete with China's centralized economy. Many people believe that Europe is being led into a 'permanent war footing' that will allow more authoritarian measures soon to make the economy more competitive. Once that process reaches a certain stage software like namecoin could be restricted.

Is anybody willing to say they prefer one side or the other? Or to correct me if I misrepresented either side?    

I think we're in agreement, but FWIW it's useful to be careful about falling into the "Vincent's Vision" trap. (This, incidentally, is a nice advantage that Namecoin's community has over Bitcoin's -- "Vincent's Vision" is generally only used as the punchline of jokes, whereas the cult of personality surrounding Satoshi is not healthy, to put it mildly.) There have been a variety of efforts over the years to introduce new use cases for Namecoin that aren't directly related to DNS censorship. Most of these efforts can be traced in genesis to an anonymous IRC user circa 2012 who suggested using Namecoin as a PKI (e.g. for TLS). These efforts quickly gained the support of the Namecoin community without Vince's help, and by now they're a core part of what Namecoin does. (I joined Namecoin dev in 2013 specifically because I was interested in the TLS PKI use case.) There have also been various less-well-received proposed use cases ("Let's make an on-chain version of Bitmessage! Surely that won't have technical problems!"), but those were rejected by the community because we all determined that they were a bad idea, not because we thought Vince would disapprove. Generally speaking, the Namecoin community likes new ideas that are technically sound, and we don't evaluate technical soundness in terms of anything Vince wrote.

I think an argument could *maybe* be made that Vince's initial non-inclusion of AuxPoW (Namecoin didn't become a Bitcoin sidechain until chain-hopping by miners crippled the Namecoin blockchain) meant that he intended it to compete with Bitcoin (at least in some sense, e.g. competing for hashrate). Vince isn't around to comment on that now, but in any event I don't think anyone really cares: Namecoin is a sidechain now, and we're not going to undo that, just like we're not going to compete with Bitcoin in any other way. You could maybe make an argument that we should get rid of the NMC token and allow name registration with BTC using a pegged sidechain, and that our failure to do so means we're competing with Bitcoin. While I am sympathetic to this argument in principle, the reality on the ground is that no one knows how to make decentralized pegged sidechains work properly, and I don't have any interest in speculating on a research area that hasn't presented a concrete proposal that I can audit for safety.

You are very clever at redirecting an issue so that people are confused into supporting your view.

The issue is not how long you and biolizard have been working with namecoin.

The issue is whether your goal is to promote the use of decentralized naming...or prevent it.

My opinion is that you two, and others, do not support the use of a naming system outside of govt/icann control.

That's what the evidence seems to point to, read previous posts.

Answer this question directly if you don't mind.

Do you believe it would be better or worse if domains were entirely decentralized outside govt/icann control?


I'm sorry if my curiousity makes the thread uncomfortable but it seems like a reasonable thing to try to figure out what's going on.

Others have expressed similar concerns on this thread and elsewhere.

~

There are other issues too that make a person wonder. I'll give an example before you ask.

Namecoin devs seem to have a relationship with monero devs.

You must remember the absolute scumbaggishness of Monero's beginning, flat out gangsters harassing and spamming in a very high dollar campaign...but here is the example...

A while back I used to trade small coins on Cryptsy to make a little money.

One coin was bte bytecoin made by user maria2.0 or something like that. I googled the coins I traded almost daily looking for info that might affect trading.

One day, suddenly, there were two bte's.

One was the coin I was trading.

The other was a coin that did not exist one day, but literally had a multi year history on Google the next day.

So I started with a well founded mistrust of bte then watched the absolute crookedest gangsterish coin gang i.e., monero, ooze out of that swamp.

So I am a little curious about the genesis of the nmc monero relationship.

My guess is that once pkc is discredited the gang will promote the ring signature algorithms, overnight btc will be trash and the ring sig gangster swine will be wealthy. Just a guess.

Are these gangsters associated with a govt? My educated guess is that they are.

There are other examples I could give.

Let's start with the question in bold type asked above.

~

ETA forgot to address your second point, "why don't I promote it."

Any person does what they can.

If I were a developer I certainly would use that skill, after I figured out first what is going on.
I'm not a developer and not technically inclined nor even educatable some would say.

If I had resources I would certainly use them, after I first figured out what is going on.
I'm not rich. If I sold everything I had it would not pay my back taxes and credit card debt.

If I had a bit of common sense I would try to find the terminal flaw that prevents the coin's success, and address it.
*bing*
I have a bit of common sense...hence I try to find out what is going on.

LOL bro that is simply hilarious. Wat???

biolizard has done more for Namecoin than almost everybody on the planet, and I've been a fan of it since 2014.

If the current audience isn't wide enough for you, you commit the efforts. I don't think you appreciate the technical challenges of maintaining or improving something of this nature. Am not really interested in chatting with you anymore until you can say something of actual substance.

You and biolizard typically are in lockstep.

Both of you have slyly discouraged any efforts to bring namecoin to a wider audience.





It seems like a good idea to figure out what is going on, why certain people on the inside do not want namecoin to be used widely.

Nobody is accusing anybody of working for any spy agency but it is being directly pointed out that there has been a very carefully implemented effort to make sure namecoin does not threaten icann/government dominance.

What is your philosophy with regard to domain naming?

Do you believe it is best if icann competition is limited to academic exercises?





Something is definitely off.

How is it that the first coin, bitcoin, has supposed vast public interest, but the second coin, namecoin, has almost none?

Please don't repeat that silliness about 'we are cypherpunks we aren't interested in being popular'.

Would the new developers mind sharing their philosophies, using screen names like 'nmcdev1', 'nmcdev2', and how they found out about namecoin?

Was their hiring related to their sharing biolizard's and nuthildah's 'vision' for namecoin?

Were they approached by nmc or did they solicit the job?

As mentioned before, large so called 'grants' to namecoin seem to coincide with, or follow, social media questions being raised about namecoin. Would somebody give a running tally of grants namecoin has received?

~

https://namecoin.com/bounties

"We're sorry, but something went wrong."
"If you are the application owner check the logs for more information."

OK so when you say something like this you should present some kind of evidence along with it to support your claim. You can't expect any critical thinker to take you seriously without it.


No, that's not what I believe. Regardless, it was never meant to compete with Bitcoin. It was meant to extend the functionality of the blockchain. The intentions for what Namecoin was meant to be are spelled out in the OP:

You quote  "Jeremy is working with Chinese intelligence to stop the public from finding out that they have a backdoor for RSA and EC crypto, and Namecoin is actually a sheepdog project to stop endangered natural languages from being saved from extinction"

You are suggesting I said anything like that?

Why don't you copy/paste something I actually said?

Regarding your funding/etc, I have noticed that when there are questions raised about namecoin on social media it is sometimes followed by a high profile grant by some organization pretending they are giving namecoin money to harden the internet or whatever.

You seem to have indicated that you do not want namecoin to be used widely because you believe real cypherpunks don't care about money or something? Is that a fair characterization of your view, quoted several comments up?


clarify a point/
The vast majority of people who do the work of governments and gangsters do it because they like the reflected glow of power, not because they are employees of a gang or government.

John Gotti had loads of people who would cover for him for free just because of who he was.

A guy who built a social media presence criticizing Assange would say "You probably think I work for the cia" but no, the vast majority of people who do the work of groups like that are doing it on their own because siding with the powerful is smart.

Elon Musk could sacrifice puppies to satan and there would be legion of people saying he is so wise for doing it, and they would cough up explanations of how puppy blood can do this and that.

~

The actions, comments, opinions of developers on namecoin are very definitely aligned with the view that governments should maintain control of domains.

Whatever the belief system behind that should be discussed.

Any explanations given so far do not hold water.

As somebody else said
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6017.1780

The belief that namecoin should be restricted, not promoted, is clear.

What is behind that belief?

Not sure what you are quoting, but more than one person believes there may be an organized effort to make sure ICANN and national governments maintain control over domains.

Supposing that is accurate, and there is a lot of evidence for it, the smart next step is to determine which side has the best position.

You believe namecoin should not compete with bitcoin. Correct? Do you believe that?