I just read that namecoin does not and will never do name-validation [1]. interesting...
[1] https://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1719
Topic: [announce] Namecoin - a distributed naming system based on Bitcoin - page 57. (Read 594487 times)
June 23, 2014, 07:22:20 AM
June 20, 2014, 05:15:44 AM
x-post for the record
June 18, 2014, 04:16:01 PM
June 17, 2014, 11:15:19 AM
While `namecoind getinfo` and `namecoind getdifficulty` display the current difficulty, `namecoind getblock ` does not return difficulty info for an arbitrary block in the past.
Is it possible to do this? I've rolled some code that works across dozens of other coin daemons but it breaks with namecoin because of this missing historical difficulty field. I've patched together some workarounds for other issues but this one is a significant obstacle to the inclusion of namecoin in various multi-coin projects.
Any help would be much appreciated -- cheers.
(if a diff patch would require significant time/effort please feel free to pm me to work out a bounty)
Is it possible to do this? I've rolled some code that works across dozens of other coin daemons but it breaks with namecoin because of this missing historical difficulty field. I've patched together some workarounds for other issues but this one is a significant obstacle to the inclusion of namecoin in various multi-coin projects.
Any help would be much appreciated -- cheers.
(if a diff patch would require significant time/effort please feel free to pm me to work out a bounty)
https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin/issues/112 Will probably be fixed soon.
Thank you Domob!
June 17, 2014, 03:43:51 AM
Namecoin is NMC?
I am a little confused.
I am a little confused.
Yes why
June 17, 2014, 02:47:12 AM
Namecoin is NMC?
I am a little confused.
I am a little confused.
June 17, 2014, 01:33:38 AM
While `namecoind getinfo` and `namecoind getdifficulty` display the current difficulty, `namecoind getblock ` does not return difficulty info for an arbitrary block in the past.
Is it possible to do this? I've rolled some code that works across dozens of other coin daemons but it breaks with namecoin because of this missing historical difficulty field. I've patched together some workarounds for other issues but this one is a significant obstacle to the inclusion of namecoin in various multi-coin projects.
Any help would be much appreciated -- cheers.
(if a diff patch would require significant time/effort please feel free to pm me to work out a bounty)
Is it possible to do this? I've rolled some code that works across dozens of other coin daemons but it breaks with namecoin because of this missing historical difficulty field. I've patched together some workarounds for other issues but this one is a significant obstacle to the inclusion of namecoin in various multi-coin projects.
Any help would be much appreciated -- cheers.
(if a diff patch would require significant time/effort please feel free to pm me to work out a bounty)
https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin/issues/112 Will probably be fixed soon.
June 16, 2014, 06:38:45 PM
While `namecoind getinfo` and `namecoind getdifficulty` display the current difficulty, `namecoind getblock ` does not return difficulty info for an arbitrary block in the past.
Is it possible to do this? I've rolled some code that works across dozens of other coin daemons but it breaks with namecoin because of this missing historical difficulty field. I've patched together some workarounds for other issues but this one is a significant obstacle to the inclusion of namecoin in various multi-coin projects.
Any help would be much appreciated -- cheers.
(if a diff patch would require significant time/effort please feel free to pm me to work out a bounty)
Is it possible to do this? I've rolled some code that works across dozens of other coin daemons but it breaks with namecoin because of this missing historical difficulty field. I've patched together some workarounds for other issues but this one is a significant obstacle to the inclusion of namecoin in various multi-coin projects.
Any help would be much appreciated -- cheers.
(if a diff patch would require significant time/effort please feel free to pm me to work out a bounty)
June 06, 2014, 06:08:06 AM
I fully agree here. While I'm not one of the "early squatters", I hold some names and will gladly give them for free (together with free help in configuration) to anyone who wants to set up a real website in earnest. I've already seen "statistics" like "oh look, what a mess, 99% of .bit domains are only squatted and not resolving to a website!" a lot, and think that this is mostly due not to squatting being such a bad problem, but because there simply isn't yet enough demand to build .bit websites. I'm sure that, when .bit gets more popular and more people can actually resolve it, this fraction will improve by a lot.
Just doing ".bit" like a ".com" is by itself not interesting. The ability to change DNS by consensus is extremely powerful in different ways than that. So the incentive to build a "bit" website is very small indeed. You have to get all users to install new software, for very little benefit. Which is why NMC hasn't taken off. It's rather the potential that is fascinating. Once there are incentives to switch to alternatives, the dynamic changes.
Squatting is an issue because we are mapping names from the real world (trademark names such as "Google", "Coke", ...) to a virtual world. So the first come first serve principle is not very good. One needs more sophisticated rules than that.
June 06, 2014, 06:02:38 AM
many thanks for this work. I will have to look into this further. Combining namecoin with OAuth is really what I need. I think part of the issue is the work required by users to a) acquire namecoins b) running namecoind. I'm working on a) and hope to make this much easier soon. If the whole process would be seamless more people might be interested. I think currently the ID part is much more useful than the domain part.
Is there some code for an explorer, like http://explorer.namecoin.info/ somewhere? I currently don't have the time to write such a webinterface, but pulling together stuff from Bitcoin should be sufficient. It would be nice to be able to explorer the blockchain after registration, see when names were registered, etc.
June 05, 2014, 02:03:41 AM
The squatting isn't as bad as its made out to be, at least for some of the earlier name holders. Many where reserved early to prevent squatters and I've heard of a fair number of those being transferred for free (bitcoin related company names mostly). I picked one applicable to me at a very reasonable price and could easily have haggled lower, a namecoin developer was holding it so it was going towards namecoin development.
I fully agree here. While I'm not one of the "early squatters", I hold some names and will gladly give them for free (together with free help in configuration) to anyone who wants to set up a real website in earnest. I've already seen "statistics" like "oh look, what a mess, 99% of .bit domains are only squatted and not resolving to a website!" a lot, and think that this is mostly due not to squatting being such a bad problem, but because there simply isn't yet enough demand to build .bit websites. I'm sure that, when .bit gets more popular and more people can actually resolve it, this fraction will improve by a lot.
June 04, 2014, 07:35:42 AM
I might get around building something like onename.io as opensource, because I need a blockchain based auth system for people to use. Systems like these could really push namecoin's use. Onename.io claiming that they are "decentral" while doing this as closed source is kinda pointless. But the webinterface I think shows how the future might look like. Building the Twitter/Github/.. API's takes time though. But in these case reliance on a Trusted third party is okay. For ".bit" it's not, because the request takes place continuously.
To get around the squatting, one will need a good auction system, which is hard to do. Actually for the Internet this is broken, too. Transfering from one registrar to another is often impossible, and all these registrars do is take a lot of money for administering a database entry (+censorship for free!). There is a protocol (RFC3731) which in theory handles domain transfers, but nobody implements it. Actually even the guys who've written the protocol don't implement it. If anyone is interested in all of this please let me know.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3731
To get around the squatting, one will need a good auction system, which is hard to do. Actually for the Internet this is broken, too. Transfering from one registrar to another is often impossible, and all these registrars do is take a lot of money for administering a database entry (+censorship for free!). There is a protocol (RFC3731) which in theory handles domain transfers, but nobody implements it. Actually even the guys who've written the protocol don't implement it. If anyone is interested in all of this please let me know.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3731
https://nameid.org/
He needs to install intermediate ssl certificates
June 04, 2014, 07:14:17 AM
I might get around building something like onename.io as opensource, because I need a blockchain based auth system for people to use. Systems like these could really push namecoin's use. Onename.io claiming that they are "decentral" while doing this as closed source is kinda pointless. But the webinterface I think shows how the future might look like. Building the Twitter/Github/.. API's takes time though. But in these case reliance on a Trusted third party is okay. For ".bit" it's not, because the request takes place continuously.
To get around the squatting, one will need a good auction system, which is hard to do. Actually for the Internet this is broken, too. Transfering from one registrar to another is often impossible, and all these registrars do is take a lot of money for administering a database entry (+censorship for free!). There is a protocol (RFC3731) which in theory handles domain transfers, but nobody implements it. Actually even the guys who've written the protocol don't implement it. If anyone is interested in all of this please let me know.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3731
To get around the squatting, one will need a good auction system, which is hard to do. Actually for the Internet this is broken, too. Transfering from one registrar to another is often impossible, and all these registrars do is take a lot of money for administering a database entry (+censorship for free!). There is a protocol (RFC3731) which in theory handles domain transfers, but nobody implements it. Actually even the guys who've written the protocol don't implement it. If anyone is interested in all of this please let me know.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3731
https://nameid.org/
June 04, 2014, 06:07:38 AM
I might get around building something like onename.io as opensource, because I need a blockchain based auth system for people to use. Systems like these could really push namecoin's use. Onename.io claiming that they are "decentral" while doing this as closed source is kinda pointless. But the webinterface I think shows how the future might look like. Building the Twitter/Github/.. API's takes time though. But in these case reliance on a Trusted third party is okay. For ".bit" it's not, because the request takes place continuously.
To get around the squatting, one will need a good auction system, which is hard to do. Actually for the Internet this is broken, too. Transfering from one registrar to another is often impossible, and all these registrars do is take a lot of money for administering a database entry (+censorship for free!). There is a protocol (RFC3731) which in theory handles domain transfers, but nobody implements it. Actually even the guys who've written the protocol don't implement it. If anyone is interested in all of this please let me know.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3731
To get around the squatting, one will need a good auction system, which is hard to do. Actually for the Internet this is broken, too. Transfering from one registrar to another is often impossible, and all these registrars do is take a lot of money for administering a database entry (+censorship for free!). There is a protocol (RFC3731) which in theory handles domain transfers, but nobody implements it. Actually even the guys who've written the protocol don't implement it. If anyone is interested in all of this please let me know.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3731
June 04, 2014, 04:04:40 AM
Namecoin v0.3.75rc1 Windows Binary
https://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?p=11499
c94272a9af15e6a486935dc08149e692b62323f0d383ff7124fb05455613fffa
https://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?p=11499
c94272a9af15e6a486935dc08149e692b62323f0d383ff7124fb05455613fffa
May 23, 2014, 09:36:26 AM
Hey /r/bitcoin, would you be interested in crowdfunding the rights to .bit from ICANN ($185k + maybe another $100k to become accredited), then set their master servers to read off of the namecoin block chain? Also, come get some SOUL colored coins - post your coinprism address in the comments.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/268vuq/hey_rbitcoin_would_you_be_interested_in/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/268vuq/hey_rbitcoin_would_you_be_interested_in/
May 20, 2014, 08:31:45 AM
Nice to see that there is still progress in development, because namecoin has a lot of potential. The reworked website is also an improvement.
The id-namespace is a great addition, which might even see widespread use earlier than .bit.
Keep up the good work!
The id-namespace is a great addition, which might even see widespread use earlier than .bit.
Keep up the good work!
May 20, 2014, 06:57:24 AM
No zip?
May 20, 2014, 06:50:27 AM
Polling people is actually interesting way to deal with this issue. I wonder how it is going to work out in long run.
May 20, 2014, 06:33:59 AM
x-post from: http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?p=11404&sid=f043e0406ee8475e9842888feafdfadd#p11404
[ANN] Namecoin v0.3.74rc1 Windows Binary - please test
This needs your help testing, especially all the fancy new (RPC) functions.
http://namecoin.info/files/Namecoin_v0.3.74rc1_setup.exe
sha256: cbb4629cf2669c6e6ff89b1822838481fd95edabb6941542ddb130df84e14e76
MAKE A BACKUP OF YOUR DATA DIRECTORY BEFORE RUNNING! This version will make changes to blkindex.dat that are NOT backward compatible.
Of course you should always have encrypted up to date backups of your wallet.dat file!
Now with installer!
Compiled with a heartbleed safe OpenSSL library.
Special thanks goes out to Domob!
v0.3.74
======
* allow for atomic name transactions via rpc commands (Domob)
* new rpc commands: name_pending, getchains (Domob)
* Simplified blkindex.dat for smaller file size and faster startup - not backward compatible ("remove auxpow", Domob) - IT WILL TAKE A WHILE FOR THE REWRITE ON THE FIRST START
* Implement name_update in createrawtransaction (Domob)
* More detailed JSON outputs for decoderawtransaction and getrawtransaction (Domob)
* Async RPC calls (Domob: ported from Huntercoin)
* Add toaddress argument to name_firstupdate (Domob)
* fixed memory leaks (Domob)
* listsinceblock (Olgasanko)
* Several performance optimizations (Domob)
* valgrind script (Domob)
* Small updates and fixes, code cleanup
v0.3.73-rc1 (never officially released)
============================
* Modified testnet difficulty calculation (Khal)
* GUI: ID-tab (Domob)
* improve name_filter speed (Khal)
* Small updates and fixes
[ANN] Namecoin v0.3.74rc1 Windows Binary - please test
This needs your help testing, especially all the fancy new (RPC) functions.
http://namecoin.info/files/Namecoin_v0.3.74rc1_setup.exe
sha256: cbb4629cf2669c6e6ff89b1822838481fd95edabb6941542ddb130df84e14e76
MAKE A BACKUP OF YOUR DATA DIRECTORY BEFORE RUNNING! This version will make changes to blkindex.dat that are NOT backward compatible.
Of course you should always have encrypted up to date backups of your wallet.dat file!
Now with installer!
Compiled with a heartbleed safe OpenSSL library.
Special thanks goes out to Domob!
v0.3.74
======
* allow for atomic name transactions via rpc commands (Domob)
* new rpc commands: name_pending, getchains (Domob)
* Simplified blkindex.dat for smaller file size and faster startup - not backward compatible ("remove auxpow", Domob) - IT WILL TAKE A WHILE FOR THE REWRITE ON THE FIRST START
* Implement name_update in createrawtransaction (Domob)
* More detailed JSON outputs for decoderawtransaction and getrawtransaction (Domob)
* Async RPC calls (Domob: ported from Huntercoin)
* Add toaddress argument to name_firstupdate (Domob)
* fixed memory leaks (Domob)
* listsinceblock (Olgasanko)
* Several performance optimizations (Domob)
* valgrind script (Domob)
* Small updates and fixes, code cleanup
v0.3.73-rc1 (never officially released)
============================
* Modified testnet difficulty calculation (Khal)
* GUI: ID-tab (Domob)
* improve name_filter speed (Khal)
* Small updates and fixes
Jump to: