Topic: [announce] Namecoin - a distributed naming system based on Bitcoin - page 71. (Read 594476 times)

Lol there's no human change log

*Sic* We severely lack of communication...

I've checked the applied fees on existing tx, and here is the result (i didn't include small tx than can be free [with 2 txIn and 2 txOut for exemple]) :

Small tx, 7 txOut dust (8x0.005)

Small tx but lot of dust (~30 outputs < 0.01NMC) (31x0.005)

Big tx (41x0.005)

Big tx (98×0,005)

Big tx, 1 dust output (this tx does not follow client fees of 35x0.005=0.175)

Small tx, no dust (3x0.005)

Small tx, no dust (2x0.005)


As you can see, fees are not so small (and if NMC value increase, it'll be expensive), if the tx follow the default fee mechanism with a base fee of 0.005 in the client.
The default client fee of 0.005 has been changed in version 3.5 (if I'm right), to adjust to something more reasonable and coupled with dust spam filter it seems to generate correct fees.
But, to avoid a hard fork, the relay fee is still set to 0.0001 (50 times lower), so it's possible to pay 50 times less.

So, to resume problems :
- the dust filter is a bit "raw" (for each output below 0.01NMC, add the default fee) and not suited for tx like 1c30f791638ce5dfd9dcd48b0a17bcd86f30df673659b91fdd56adeaaba956a7 & f519d0eef901e9920bbb532239f55304f66ae05f8e2f01b112d02a4d88699bb4.
- relay fees are too low
- if we both changes the way to calculate fees & relay fees, default fees will be too high.

Maybe we can :
- update the dust filter to use 0.001 as limit (instead of 0.01NMC) and add 10xFees when dust
- complete by "add fee for each txOut above the second one" (too much split penalized)
- change the relay fee to 0.0002
- change the client fee to 0.0020

About name_* transactions, we can choose to add fees in any case (so, 0.002NMC for client / 0.0002NMC for relay)
About locked coins in name_new, we can change the value to 0.0001NMC, but we'll raise the anti-dust feature (it may be a way to force fees), so, 0.001NMC ?
With those 2 changes, people have an incentive to update to this new version (0.005NMC instead of 0.01NMC for name_new + name_firstupdate) and each name_update will cost at least 0.002NMC

Result on TXs above (currentFee => new ClientFee / new RelayFee) :

As I don't understand very well what it means :p

We could test this new domain without registration fee but with a namecoin binding to stop spam. I guess binding 1 namecoin would be OK and that would return to the domain owner after releasing the domain. So he would loose nothing and probably win when the namecoin prices will increase.

Thanks finally switched from bitcoin.conf to namecoin.conf

we need as many people as possible, like your self to voice opinions to get this right..

name_new was eventually going to be free.. but spam would be a problem atm..

i think it should just keep going down in increments.. based on the exponential growth of storage space increase... something like that..

Already switched.


Centralising a fund for development from fees will create many problems and imho is a terribly misguided idea, any/all fees should go to the coinbase transaction. Let the market take care of it ...we are getting development now.

namecoin.conf .. but i believe bitcoin.conf should "still" work... not sure which has priority..

should be easy to test

I never really have been a fan of NMC destruction it just like seems a crude waste. The eloquent idea seems to be the domain Binding, possibly with this value being released to the miners when the domain registration expires. I also like the idea of sponsoring a namecoin development fund through Tx fee, although I wonder if this needs to be done as a fixed % from within transactions?  Surely the need for a Fund is V. important now, but will decrease significantly with time. (Possibly it could be related to Block reward halving?)

Hard forks my vote is sooner rather than later with some very nice PR to the mining pools before hand.

There is a lot of good work coming out here guys keep it up.  

Have we or will switch from bitcoin.conf to namecoin.conf?

Using, hope I trust you

The Namecoin fee is also voluntary if you are sending namecoins from one address to another like you use with bitcoins. The fee is for a Namecoin specific service, the domain registration., which you cannot compare with bitcoin. This service requires additional work from the miners and from the DNS servers. However some people are opposing coin destruction and I proposed in this thread other alternative methods to protect the network against spam. Each of them has some advantages and disadvantages.
Some other choices could be namecoin binding or donation for a Namecoin Development Found(for those who prefer instead of coin destruction).

Yeah but the bitcoin fees are voluntary, the minimum fee is just a default of the official client. As far as I can tell the name_firstupdate fee is network-enforced, so it will become way harder to change if namecoin becomes widely used. Anyway, still would like to know the reason why vinced decided to put that 0.01 NC minimum since the only purpose of that fee is to reduce domain squatting early on. If the fee is left there then the money supply will begin to contract at some point when the block reward becomes less than the rate of destruction.

RPC command walletpassphrase added (and extras)
Progress bar added (does the job)

Please test and give any errors when compiling on Linux.

In essence this should now be a fully working client.. all name commands usable from debug window... with Encryption working.

as new commands have been added, we have set version to 3.55
You can compile the namecoind...

see commit

https://github.com/namecoin-qt/namecoin-qt/commit/a85e46773654a19e4964fba026e1d928ebd76cd8

https://github.com/namecoin-qt/namecoin-qt

Windows binaries - Namecoin-qt + Namecoind
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/3aa8ukj7v6m5d/Namecoin-qt


we are working on Nelisky's RPC commands next

Good work Khal.
Unfortunately I cannot help you by coding the client because I started just recently to study deeper technical details in Bitcoin/Namecoin.
But I am improving step by step my small project of merged bitcoin/namecoin wallet. Now I will add signature for a message with a namecoin address.

yep, and may as well be free if not stored in block chain (realized this and edited earlier.. should have edited the beginning of the paragraph )

how to pay fees without a tx in the blockchain ? :p
At least there must be one tx in and one tx out for the change, unspent part is the fee for miners. Out of the chain, a msg is broadcasted, like a tx/block/addr/etc, with the hash of the tx and auto-signed with the key used by the tx.

Another possibility is to spend the tx with the fee (std tx with its hash) + a second hash of the tx + the data, and only the first part is stored in the bc.

Avoidind several msg to be sent for one tx would be a pain for something that should not be stored :p

See http://dot-bit.org/Network_Rules_Upgrade :
- We need to fix the bug which limit the value to 520B => hard fork required, so we can upgrade to 9k instead.
- Fees are not adapted (coins are split & data storage is very cheap) => spam

See http://dot-bit.org/UpgradeNamecoinCode :
- Current namecoin is not efficient => switch to recent bitcoin code

We must not wait too long too, otherwise they will really all stop mining :p


It seems it is not the case indeed... Oops


Wouldn't it be simplier to improve the fee per kB ? Plus, as it seems the locked fee can be anything...
A name_update costs fees if you renew it before some combinaison of parameters :
:p

keep up the good work guys!