Topic: [announce] Namecoin - a distributed naming system based on Bitcoin - page 61. (Read 594476 times)
November 28, 2013, 07:29:56 PM
How much will I have to download after launching Namecoin these days?
October 29, 2013, 03:28:18 PM
Out now: Namecoin-Qt & daemon with the name enforcing bug fixed.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3436752
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3436752
October 16, 2013, 01:38:06 AM
There's already a proposed fix and plan for a hard-fork now. The fix seemingly has some bugs on GNU/Linux, but the planned strategy is sound and accepted by the community at large (it seems). I think this problem can be considered well on its way to be solved without causing actual losses to anyone except those who tried to "steal" names abusing the bug.
October 15, 2013, 09:03:13 AM
Well, the whole tone of his post sounded fishy, but he does mention at the very end of the OP that he made an example of the issue in practice and explains it. I honestly don't have the brain power today to parse through this but my TL/DR makes me think the issue as described is not a protocol issue but rather a missing check in the implementation. That being the case I can't understand the 'post-mortem' tag (unless, of course, someone wants to buy cheaper).
In the meantime he demonstrated the bug on a chosen domain.It seems that I misinterpreted some informations.
I hope we can fix it quickly.
October 15, 2013, 08:48:48 AM
Well, the whole tone of his post sounded fishy, but he does mention at the very end of the OP that he made an example of the issue in practice and explains it. I honestly don't have the brain power today to parse through this but my TL/DR makes me think the issue as described is not a protocol issue but rather a missing check in the implementation. That being the case I can't understand the 'post-mortem' tag (unless, of course, someone wants to buy cheaper).
October 15, 2013, 08:42:11 AM
Have you guys noticed this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/namecoin-was-stillborn-i-had-to-switch-off-life-support-310954 already?
Yes. I saw it from the beginning.The user 'libcoin'
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/libcoin-52207
have done his first post on the Namecoin forum and asserted that Namecoin is dead
'This is the postmortems and obituary over namecoin.'
but Namecoin has been always his favorite alt-coin.
'Namecoin has always been my favorite alt-coin'
Here in bitcointalk.org his first word about Namecoin is only in his post where he is announcing its dead.
Very strange.
They are some technical observations made by him which needs to be checked if it they are true or not. I guess that could take some time.
But he could make a very easy demonstration of his theory by transferring a .bit domain owned by somebody to another address and then back to the original owner.
October 15, 2013, 08:16:24 AM
Have you guys noticed this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/namecoin-was-stillborn-i-had-to-switch-off-life-support-310954 already?
October 02, 2013, 04:11:07 AM
Just want to point out snailbrain's Namecoin version with GUI is now "official".
see http://namecoin.info and https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3211229
see http://namecoin.info and https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3211229
September 22, 2013, 04:43:45 AM
Is there a way to open old wallet in namecoin Q.3.70b?
edit: Nevermind, wallet file was corrupted. Working copy restored from backup is working with Q.3.70b
Glad to hear it was not a problem with the new version. Code:
[deafboy@Planetexpress namecoinq-vQ.3.70b]$ ./namecoin-qt
************************
EXCEPTION: 11DbException
Db::open: Invalid argument
namecoin in Runaway exception
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
[deafboy@Planetexpress namecoinq-vQ.3.70b]$
************************
EXCEPTION: 11DbException
Db::open: Invalid argument
namecoin in Runaway exception
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
[deafboy@Planetexpress namecoinq-vQ.3.70b]$
edit: Nevermind, wallet file was corrupted. Working copy restored from backup is working with Q.3.70b
September 21, 2013, 01:09:38 AM
Is there a way to open old wallet in namecoin Q.3.70b?
edit: Nevermind, wallet file was corrupted. Working copy restored from backup is working with Q.3.70b
Code:
[deafboy@Planetexpress namecoinq-vQ.3.70b]$ ./namecoin-qt
************************
EXCEPTION: 11DbException
Db::open: Invalid argument
namecoin in Runaway exception
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
[deafboy@Planetexpress namecoinq-vQ.3.70b]$
************************
EXCEPTION: 11DbException
Db::open: Invalid argument
namecoin in Runaway exception
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
[deafboy@Planetexpress namecoinq-vQ.3.70b]$
edit: Nevermind, wallet file was corrupted. Working copy restored from backup is working with Q.3.70b
September 11, 2013, 03:19:14 AM
I would tend to think you're stuck on the synchronization part.
What block number does getinfo reports? You should have at least 133271.
What block number does getinfo reports? You should have at least 133271.
Yep, it seems it's on an old block (or still downloading blocks?).
[...]
Edit: actually the block count is moving up, just slowly..
[...]
September 11, 2013, 12:32:53 AM
I would tend to think you're stuck on the synchronization part.
What block number does getinfo reports? You should have at least 133271.
What block number does getinfo reports? You should have at least 133271.
Yep, it seems it's on an old block (or still downloading blocks?).
Code:
$ namecoind getinfo
{
"version" : 35000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 109890,
"connections" : 8,
"proxy" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"difficulty" : 2275750.77475240,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1373125339,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00010000,
"errors" : ""
}
Edit: actually the block count is moving up, just slowly..
Code:
$ namecoind getinfo
{
"version" : 35000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 109997,
"connections" : 8,
"proxy" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"difficulty" : 2275750.77475240,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1373125339,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00010000,
"errors" : ""
}
September 10, 2013, 10:42:40 PM
I run Reddit's ALTcointip bot and have the following issue with namecoin now:
Two days ago I've moved the service to a new Linux host. For every coin daemon (bitcoin, litecoin, etc) I've moved only the wallet.dat, then started the daemon. Every coin daemon shows correct balance, list of accounts, and transactions - except namecoin.
On old host:
On new host:
I'm already running "namecoind -rescan" but so far it doesn't change anything.
The curious thing is "listtransactions" output is the same, except for "confirmations" field:
On old host:
On new host:
Should I wait for "namecoind -rescan" to finish? Is it doing something? Should I delete all files and start from scratch again?
On the new host's debug.log I see a lot of the following lines:
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: I'm running namecoind 0.3.50 on Ubuntu 12.10 64-bit. Compiling 0.3.51 now to see if that changes anything.
Two days ago I've moved the service to a new Linux host. For every coin daemon (bitcoin, litecoin, etc) I've moved only the wallet.dat, then started the daemon. Every coin daemon shows correct balance, list of accounts, and transactions - except namecoin.
On old host:
Code:
$ namecoind getbalance
272.37500705
$ namecoind listaccounts|grep -v \ 0\\.0000
{
"user1" : 6.00000000,
"user2" : 0.20000000,
...
"MYSELF" : 0.00000000,
...
}
On new host:
Code:
$ namecoind getbalance
0.00000000
dv@nique:~/git/altcointip-chef$ namecoind listaccounts|grep -v \ 0\\.0000
{
"user1" : 6.00000000,
"user2" : 0.20000000,
...
"MYSELF" : -1114.11720000,
}
I'm already running "namecoind -rescan" but so far it doesn't change anything.
The curious thing is "listtransactions" output is the same, except for "confirmations" field:
On old host:
Code:
{
"account" : "userX",
"address" : "...",
"category" : "receive",
"amount" : 0.68229749,
"confirmations" : 9454,
"txid" : "...",
"time" : 1374880993
},
On new host:
Code:
{
"account" : "userX",
"address" : "...",
"category" : "receive",
"amount" : 0.68229749,
"confirmations" : 0,
"txid" : "...",
"time" : 1374880782
},
Should I wait for "namecoind -rescan" to finish? Is it doing something? Should I delete all files and start from scratch again?
On the new host's debug.log I see a lot of the following lines:
Code:
ConnectInputsHook() : connecting inputs on d5abdc763efface7de3296b774386ea6ba6b9651e198d2353f02d89cd6be1af0 which was not in pending - must be someone elses
ConnectInputsHook() : connecting inputs on d6039a375ccc256a2cea48ff0a5f49a4858ec890ef7e27e52221fe63ddec2563 which was not in pending - must be someone elses
SetBestChain: new best=d6c0ee805c82ce28629d height=109405 work=302834473479778498070
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
received: block (8660 bytes)
received block 863cfa1a719ee05f6309
ConnectInputsHook() : connecting inputs on efacf06c612809e1147180c3d0c5426a73c430c00843813d36b6e7698009674c which was not in pending - must be someone elses
ConnectInputsHook() : connecting inputs on ba22b543392ce3bfb26c9e7788b8c974c420814199f47fd86184886dc97e6ce5 which was not in pending - must be someone elses
ConnectInputsHook() : connecting inputs on db0beaaaaf31f6b2d441f18f111b49018ccb5c121e410402eb97e395fdd33c42 which was not in pending - must be someone elses
ConnectInputsHook() : connecting inputs on db1a96d6b30ddcfe893813b2b777dd11dd15b765ca70c088d80945e29a1753d5 which was not in pending - must be someone elses
ConnectInputsHook() : connecting inputs on e09478c8b9010efef38eb4f9d66bdc46020dbf9851eb59eb84de06dd7a445244 which was not in pending - must be someone elses
ConnectInputsHook() : connecting inputs on ef7db4038299edeff88d95b52b81abf90a3df649ed3d7fea5c9c3afd20ce57fe which was not in pending - must be someone elses
ConnectInputsHook() : connecting inputs on efeefe59c7c9110bc09336e8cd1d3a7ec207680110e81f8481f43817a2eac5ef which was not in pending - must be someone elses
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: I'm running namecoind 0.3.50 on Ubuntu 12.10 64-bit. Compiling 0.3.51 now to see if that changes anything.
August 26, 2013, 12:17:26 PM
could someone upload the current blockchain please? it's still a pain to synch this shit :<
use namecoind + tmpfs and your synced in ~30 min 
excuse me, but what is tmpfs? and how would it help me download an incredible slow blockchain?
Also you might want to check out snailbrain's latest inofficial built - it's very fast: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annnmc-namecoin-wallet-qt-with-integrated-name-registration-v375-236375
August 26, 2013, 11:49:41 AM
could someone upload the current blockchain please? it's still a pain to synch this shit :<
use namecoind + tmpfs and your synced in ~30 min excuse me, but what is tmpfs? and how would it help me download an incredible slow blockchain?
August 26, 2013, 09:52:19 AM
BitName complements Namecoin? Or competes with Namecoin?
At the moment I haven't got the time to read the whole thread, but maybe someone of us Namecoin users already has a deeper understanding of BitNames. This is the main thread on BitNames/Bitshares/Bitmessage:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitnames-dns-auction-250612
At the moment I haven't got the time to read the whole thread, but maybe someone of us Namecoin users already has a deeper understanding of BitNames. This is the main thread on BitNames/Bitshares/Bitmessage:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitnames-dns-auction-250612
A very good question.I think this is still not so clear at the moment because it is only a concept.
Some ideas could be also integrated in the actual Namecoin.
August 25, 2013, 03:33:54 PM
BitName complements Namecoin? Or competes with Namecoin?
At the moment I haven't got the time to read the whole thread, but maybe someone of us Namecoin users already has a deeper understanding of BitNames. This is the main thread on BitNames/Bitshares/Bitmessage:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitnames-dns-auction-250612
EDIT: Oops, I confused the links. This is the general discussion on BitNames/Bitshares/Bitmessage:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/announce-project-quixote-bitshares-bitnames-and-bitmessage-279771
and this is the discussion about BitNames in particular:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitnames-dns-auction-250612
At the moment I haven't got the time to read the whole thread, but maybe someone of us Namecoin users already has a deeper understanding of BitNames. This is the main thread on BitNames/Bitshares/Bitmessage:
EDIT: Oops, I confused the links. This is the general discussion on BitNames/Bitshares/Bitmessage:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/announce-project-quixote-bitshares-bitnames-and-bitmessage-279771
and this is the discussion about BitNames in particular:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitnames-dns-auction-250612
August 09, 2013, 08:21:56 AM
could someone upload the current blockchain please? it's still a pain to synch this shit :<
use namecoind + tmpfs and your synced in ~30 min August 09, 2013, 06:26:29 AM
could someone upload the current blockchain please? it's still a pain to synch this shit :<
Try this version if you dare: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2801801 August 09, 2013, 06:20:20 AM
could someone upload the current blockchain please? it's still a pain to synch this shit :<
Jump to: