Topic: [announce] Namecoin - a distributed naming system based on Bitcoin - page 77. (Read 594476 times)

Are you serious?? ... this would be exceptional, i hope you are not jagging our chains here?

What are the possibilities of creating a merged Lite client like Multibit or Electrum by incorporating into their existing structure. Perhaps as an Add-on for NMC compatibility?   

nmc client based on the default bitcoin qt client coming soon..

Whatever you develop for the namecoin network it is better than nothing and the community will surely accept it positively.
Best would be a Satoshi based client for the security. However if you like and can work better in a web environment it would be also helpful.
From LAMP as I see it would be enough A+P for a web client and it would be portable for every operation system. If you make it minimalistic without unnecessary complications it will be  easier for others to understand it and eventually continue your work.
Yesterday I started also to make something browser based for namecoin(just html with javascript) and I intend to release it this week.

Sounds very complicated.

This is absolute nonsense. Exactly the opposite is the case. The Namecoin network had all the time a higher hashrate/market volume than any other chain. This is because of the merged mining with bitcoin. Because of this high hashrate it is not profitable to make solo mining for namecoin and it has the lowest mining reward.
Scrypt doesn't protect at all against miner switch, they need only to change the mining program even if it is using different parameter but they cannot bundle their efforts to protect the network if they are different parameters.
Just compare the facts:
http://dustcoin.com/mining

This is why the popular alt coins use scrypt, so ASIC miners can't just jump chains to cause havoc. If a coin can be mined with a Bitcoin ASIC then its doomed, the hashing algorithm must be different.

Bitcoin can't suffer from this problem because it has already attracted the largest amount of hash power. Even if every alt coin switch to Bitcoin it would not change the difficulty too much.

If you make a alt coin based on the SHA hashing of Bitcoin then you will be attacked easily.

No really, I have a version of an instawallet running on my local machine in a VM image that is basically a vanilla Ubuntu LAMP installation with the coind server running. I log in through my browser on my host computer and I can send, receive, check stats of the network, etc...

I know it's not the best way of doing it, but it does work.

LAMP for a local GUI? That really does not make sense.

I'm on 10.6.8, trying to use Macports libraries to get it to work. Thanks!

Actually I was thinking the pesron would be a running a full LAMP setup. Albeit customised.

tried namecoin, wouldnt work.

Of course, the bitcoin dev/miners will say "bloat!" as soon as anyone try to store any information on it,

the value of nmc relies on the functions as a distributed database storage, and a un-censored dns, (imagine the goverments start blocking bitcoin exchanges!)

the merged mining was setup to assure the survival of nmc in all cases, however it had the side-effect of making nmc mining unproffitable.

however without a proper follow-up of updates and easy-ness of use it's not going to take-off, (chicken and egg problem)

it was thought that in the future, some-one will develop this, as in the current-state, a regulat user cannot figure how to use it.

I'm not sure if this was deliberated to prevent outsiders to use this technology or vinced got suck on something or just moved-on after losing interest.

PD: maybe lowering the transaction fees and giving some advertisement of the advantages of nmc will encourage the adoption of nmc from the colored-coin people. It is remarkable that much more information can be stored in nmc than btc. The system must be updated, but the only one that can do it is people holding nmc, the rest don't care...

I'll see if i can get it compiled on a Mac OS for you and either tel you what I did or you could try my binary if you like ... what OSX are you on and 32 or 64bit? (also might be able to do it using clang I suppose)

It's great someone is taking a look ... interesting that vinced used OP codes inside Script, I've never taken that close a look ... adds to the mystery who was vinced and the contention that he was one of 'team nakamoto'

bloat

Okay, so I can't get a working binary on my Mac right now, but I can delve through the source code, and that has been very enlightening, namely, that Namecoins really are just colored coins! I had thought that the Namecoin alt had modified the transaction structure in some way to handle setting the value of the registered name, but that doesn't look to be the case. Instead, Namecoin uses the Script of the transaction to set a value, and enforces that subsequent "name_update" transactions absorb the most recent unspent transaction of the same 0.01 NMC that was used to initialize the name in the first place. Namecoin usurps a few of the Script constants (namely OP_1, OP_2, and OP_3) and gives them special meaning. It constructs the Scripts to properly validate with the standard Bitcoin parser (it uses OP_DROP to drop off its special values before continuing with a standard transaction Script).

Namecoin's blockchain is at the same speed as Bitcoin's (10 minutes), and uses the same hashing methodology, just the genesis block is based on a different string. That aside, it looks to me that Namecoin's transactions would qualify as valid, non-standard Bitcoin transactions (non-standard because they use different opcodes in their Scripts). As far as I can tell, most all the other changes to the Namecoin source compared to Bitcoin's are to implement the merged mining idea.

So... given that "non-standard transactions" might be entering the community's awareness more, due to 0.8.2 marking microtransactions as non-standard, the question that comes to my mind is why is this an alt-chain at all? The same mining pools that have been convinced to run namecoin pools, could probably be convinced to run pools that accept non-standard Bitcoin transactions (or specific non-standard transactions that conform to a "namecoin standard script") instead, and "namecoins" could become colored Bitcoins with a particular script giving them a data value as well. Is there a strong benefit to having this be a completely separate blockchain?

No luck; still getting that error. Is anyone else's darwin/osx gcc-fu better than mine and can get a Mac binary compiled? I can muddle my way through C code (I'm a PHP/Python dev, mostly), but all the compiling nuances I haven't gotten my head around entirely.

Colored coins could be integrated with the namecoin system and it would be fine if they animate the consumption of namecoins.

A browser api that connects with a blockchain.info style page , will raise awareness and will be easy for the user, since he don't have to download all the nmc blockchain, or it could also connects to the local nmc-qt or nmc-id.

however for that to happen, as i understand the namecoin-id or the server side equivalent needs to be updated to support all the improvements,
if not is a work half-done and we could encounter bugs or security issues in the future.

I don't know the reasons of the abandon of the nmc project, but i know for sure that their value will skyrocket if there's a system in place. Even tor it's easyer to use than this at the moment. This project was supposed to super-seed tor making it more user friendly with proper name-addresses.

I would suggest offering the bounty in btc or fiat and maybe posting in a developers job for bitcoins page.
Or even contact the colored-coins people, they sure will want a data storage solution like NMC.

What would be the advantage over a normal GUI?