Topic: [announce] Namecoin - a distributed naming system based on Bitcoin - page 102. (Read 597092 times)
April 21, 2011, 05:37:02 PM
More questions--do namecoins show in "getinfo" before they mature, or after? And if after, how does one know they are mature and what happens if you try to register a name before your coins mature?
April 21, 2011, 05:18:01 PM
Forever, or on the BitCoin curve with that amount reduced every two years?
I think forever. Developer have to verify.
April 21, 2011, 05:02:57 PM
Forever, or on the BitCoin curve with that amount reduced every two years?
I think forever. Developer have to verify.
April 21, 2011, 05:00:36 PM
Methinks that it only generate 50 namecoin every ten minute.
Forever, or on the BitCoin curve with that amount reduced every two years? April 21, 2011, 03:32:21 PM
4. Can someone explain the economics here--if this thing runs on the same distribution curve as BitCoin (with a finite total of Namecoins) then doesn't that cap the total entries at 19,000,000/0.01, and if it has an infinite total then doesn't that wipe out the mining incentive?
Methinks that it only generate 50 namecoin every ten minute. However, the FAQ said name registration will destroy namecoins. April 21, 2011, 02:53:52 PM
Four questions:
1. Is there a full spec somewhere?
2. Why does this default to the same RPC port as the bitcoin client?
3. Has the NameCoin protocol been properly designed to allow cross-mining?
4. Can someone explain the economics here--if this thing runs on the same distribution curve as BitCoin (with a finite total of Namecoins) then doesn't that cap the total entries at 19,000,000/0.01, and if it has an infinite total then doesn't that wipe out the mining incentive?
Now you guys see why I'm so nice to n00bs--I know that at some point, inevitably, I will be one again.
1. Is there a full spec somewhere?
2. Why does this default to the same RPC port as the bitcoin client?
3. Has the NameCoin protocol been properly designed to allow cross-mining?
4. Can someone explain the economics here--if this thing runs on the same distribution curve as BitCoin (with a finite total of Namecoins) then doesn't that cap the total entries at 19,000,000/0.01, and if it has an infinite total then doesn't that wipe out the mining incentive?
Now you guys see why I'm so nice to n00bs--I know that at some point, inevitably, I will be one again.
April 21, 2011, 02:35:15 PM
I've burnt a lot of money here, do I at least get beta testing credits?
April 21, 2011, 01:52:06 PM
So far for me I have just had to wait 12 blocks and all of my names have come online. Trying to do a name_firstupdate on an existing name and lossing the NC must just be a bug. I recommend not doing that! That would also be good reason to wait 12 blocks to make sure someone doesn't beat you to the name.
I get the same error with name_update d/q as well. Either way, even if the transaction gets rejected, I pay the fee and I can see it in listtansactions. With d/bet I have a different situation. As it is in my names list (unlike d/q), I can send update requests without errors. Of course none of them gets in the block chain, since it actually belongs to someone else... That would also be good reason to wait 12 blocks to make sure someone doesn't beat you to the name.I've burnt a lot of money here, do I at least get beta testing credits?
April 21, 2011, 12:37:50 PM
So I've been generating for 48 hours and haven't picked up a block yet--are people gpu mining this? Current difficulty is 512--what does that equate to in MHash-hours for finding a block?
1 Mhash would take you 25 days, 10 hours, 50 minutes on average to find a block at a difficulty of 512. You can use the Bitcoin calculator here: http://www.alloscomp.com/bitcoin/calculator.phpYes, people are GPU mining. I am putting 1 GHash towards the block chain.
April 21, 2011, 12:31:56 PM
So I've been generating for 48 hours and haven't picked up a block yet--are people gpu mining this? Current difficulty is 512--what does that equate to in MHash-hours for finding a block?
April 21, 2011, 12:03:19 PM
I hope there will be a windows build soon...?
April 21, 2011, 11:59:10 AM
What does "namecoind -rescan" do? I haven't tried it.
It didn't help. Basically, it rescans the blockchain and registers all transactions that are missing from the wallet.You won't get the name until at least 12 blocks after the block name_new went through on. You should get it if you didn't get an error. I have gotten all of mine.
OK, another question. What happens if you update before 12 blocks have passed? That would also be good reason to wait 12 blocks to make sure someone doesn't beat you to the name. April 21, 2011, 11:44:23 AM
What does "namecoind -rescan" do? I haven't tried it.
It didn't help. Basically, it rescans the blockchain and registers all transactions that are missing from the wallet.You won't get the name until at least 12 blocks after the block name_new went through on. You should get it if you didn't get an error. I have gotten all of mine.
OK, another question. What happens if you update before 12 blocks have passed? April 21, 2011, 11:35:43 AM
Hehe. Well, I couldn't get the second either. I'm guessing it was already in name_scan and I didn't see it, that's why it didn't give me an error. d/q wasn't when I tried to update (though I'm not sure). It could as well be the other way around.
You won't get the name until at least 12 blocks after the block name_new went through on. You should get it if you didn't get an error. I have gotten all of mine.I'm hoping there was a fork of some sorts and we'll get back our NCs when the network gets rid of it. We need a block explorer, quick!
Have you tried restarting with namecoind -rescan?
April 21, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
About not having to pay 50 for the second name, possibly the system detected that it took your NC by mistake when you tried to get d/q ?
Hehe. Well, I couldn't get the second either. I'm guessing it was already in name_scan and I didn't see it, that's why it didn't give me an error. d/q wasn't when I tried to update (though I'm not sure). It could as well be the other way around. (It must be the other way around, since you also got the same behavior, but it makes less sense IMO.)Yep, I had the exact same thing happen to me when I tried to register d/q. I lost 50 NC and got the same error.
I'm hoping there was a fork of some sorts and we'll get back our NCs when the network gets rid of it. We need a block explorer, quick!
Have you tried restarting with namecoind -rescan?
April 21, 2011, 11:17:33 AM
Yep, I had the exact same thing happen to me when I tried to register d/q. I lost 50 NC and got the same error.
April 21, 2011, 11:07:22 AM
I'm guessing d/q collided, because someone else had already made the first update. Was it why I had an "x" in my name list? So where did that 49.43 NCs go? And where did the last 0.57 NC come from? And why didn't I pay 50 for the second name? I'm such a confused panda...
About not having to pay 50 for the second name, possibly the system detected that it took your NC by mistake when you tried to get d/q ?
If you are generating blocks then you will get some "transaction fees" from people running name_new and name_update. I believe the "transaction fees" are one NC cent or 0.01 NC and the "network fees" are 50 NC right now and only occur during name_firstupdate commands.
I'll try to test registering the d/q when I get some more NC. I spent it all already.
April 21, 2011, 10:48:39 AM
Regarding TLD: There is also the question about TLD's other than .bit (or whatever is accepted as the default). However I think putting TLD in the name is kinda against the established architecture. I think it needs to be part of the name specification, not the name itself.
So, if we wanted .bit and .web for instance we would run two block chain networks, one for .bit and one for .web? I can see how that might fit the established architecture better, but why not use the additional namespace in Namecoin to define additional TLDs? The name server software could simply ignore names that specified a TLD that were invalid.I wasn't talking about two block chains, but rather using application specifiers. I guess, in effect, it's the same thing as you say. Now, d/ can be the default domain specifier, no need to change it, and in the future we could add dw/ for .web for instance.
On a different note, I'm struggling to understand what the deal is here:
Code:
$ namecoind getinfo
{
"version" : 32100,
"balance" : 99.90000000,
"blocks" : 193,
"connections" : 16,
"proxy" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"difficulty" : 512.00781274,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1303282246,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
$ namecoind name_list
[
...,
{
"name" : "d/q",
"value" : "x",
"expires_in" : 11973
},
...
]
exp@erik ~/namecoin $ namecoind name_firstupdate d/q 2xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0 value
error: {"code":-4,"message":"Error: The transaction was rejected. This might happen if some of the coins in your wallet were already spent, such as if you used a copy of wallet.dat and coins were spent in the copy but not marked as spent here."}
exp@erik ~/namecoin $ namecoind getinfo
{
"version" : 32100,
"balance" : 50.47000000,
"blocks" : 193,
"connections" : 16,
"proxy" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"difficulty" : 512.00781274,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1303282246,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
$ namecoind name_firstupdate d/bet 0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0 value
bxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxb
$ namecoind getinfo
{
"version" : 32100,
"balance" : 51.04000000,
"blocks" : 194,
"connections" : 16,
"proxy" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"difficulty" : 512.00781274,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1303282246,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
I'm guessing d/q collided, because someone else had already made the first update. Was it why I had an "x" in my name list? So where did that 49.43 NCs go? And where did the last 0.57 NC come from? And why didn't I pay 50 for the second name? I'm such a confused panda...
EDIT: Couldn't get d/bet either. I'm guessing d/q was taken but not updated yet. That's why there was the error and I lost 50 coins. d/bet was already updated so nothing happened. These are my guesses... I still don't know why I'm missing 50 NCs though...
April 21, 2011, 10:14:44 AM
Regarding TLD: There is also the question about TLD's other than .bit (or whatever is accepted as the default). However I think putting TLD in the name is kinda against the established architecture. I think it needs to be part of the name specification, not the name itself.
So, if we wanted .bit and .web for instance we would run two block chain networks, one for .bit and one for .web? I can see how that might fit the established architecture better, but why not use the additional namespace in Namecoin to define additional TLDs? The name server software could simply ignore names that specified a TLD that were invalid.I am probably showing my ignorance here, but why couldn't Namecoin be the index for TLDs that currently aren't used? I think it would be interesting if there was a TLD block chain, and then owners could have entire TLDs to sell if they wanted to. Maybe the owner could run a block chain of their own to sell their TLD space, or they could sell in a more central manor. Then you could get urls like "web" Or "web.help", or simply "bitcoin".
Is this a possibility or am I crazy?
April 21, 2011, 09:23:05 AM
It seems that bitcoind is instead reading the configuration file in .namecoin rather than .bitcoin?
That is kinda odd, I'd get it if it was the other way around. Are you sure they aren't hard linked or anything? I'm running both by the way, with RPC servers on. I suggest you run namecoind as a different user, just in case.About the design questions, I have not a clue. I think 3 months is reasonable, especially if it auto renews. Why do we have to decide on the TLD? Is it possible that Namecoin names could specify the TLD to use as well?
I second the question.
Yes I also think 3 is OK, but 6 would be much better. Can we meet third way and make it 4?
Regarding TLD: There is also the question about TLD's other than .bit (or whatever is accepted as the default). However I think putting TLD in the name is kinda against the established architecture. I think it needs to be part of the name specification, not the name itself.
Jump to: