How long a name will stay until it expires?
One of my names does not resolve any more, but when I tried to re-extablish it with historical commands those commands failed
name_update: error: {"code":-5,"message":"Invalid namecoin address"}
name_firstupdate: error: {"code":-1,"message":"this name is already active"}
Topic: [announce] Namecoin - a distributed naming system based on Bitcoin - page 60. (Read 597064 times)
June 24, 2014, 08:27:23 AM
June 24, 2014, 07:54:42 AM
many of my names seem to have disappeared after the last update
Looks a bit like you did some experiments with directory names and then mixed up older and newer versions of your wallet.dat backups. What does the "validateaddress" command give you on the addresses of these names? "ismine"=true?i dont think so
yes it says true
if i delete the database, they appear but disappear at or close to synced
out of many, only 1 shows, i dont think they expired as 1 is still good, the other may have no data tho, are those filtered?
Code:
namecoin-qt -rescan
June 24, 2014, 06:03:46 AM
many of my names seem to have disappeared after the last update
Looks a bit like you did some experiments with directory names and then mixed up older and newer versions of your wallet.dat backups. What does the "validateaddress" command give you on the addresses of these names? "ismine"=true?i dont think so
yes it says true
if i delete the database, they appear but disappear at or close to synced
out of many, only 1 shows, i dont think they expired as 1 is still good, the other may have no data tho, are those filtered?
June 24, 2014, 01:12:03 AM
many of my names seem to have disappeared after the last update
Looks a bit like you did some experiments with directory names and then mixed up older and newer versions of your wallet.dat backups. What does the "validateaddress" command give you on the addresses of these names? "ismine"=true? June 23, 2014, 06:27:17 AM
many of my names seem to have disappeared after the last update
June 23, 2014, 06:22:20 AM
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
[1] https://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1719
June 20, 2014, 04:15:44 AM
x-post for the record
June 18, 2014, 03:16:01 PM
June 17, 2014, 10:15:19 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, 02:43:51 AM
Namecoin is NMC?
I am a little confused.
I am a little confused.
Yes why
June 17, 2014, 01:47:12 AM
Namecoin is NMC?
I am a little confused.
I am a little confused.
June 17, 2014, 12:33:38 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, 05:38:45 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, 05:08:06 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, 05:02:38 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, 01:03:41 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, 06:35:42 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, 06:14:17 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, 05:07:38 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, 03:04:40 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
Jump to: