Topic: [announce] Namecoin - a distributed naming system based on Bitcoin - page 8. (Read 597168 times)

Thanks for the response. It is enlightening to get some insight on these issues from an actual developer.

I had trouble wrapping my head around the idea that "tokens that can expire" at first, and there remains debate as to whether re-registered assets are the same entity as the pre-expired one (with compelling arguments on both sides). But your assessment gives me the final push of conviction I needed to accept them as NFTs.

It is unfortunately true that there is a shystery element that is attached to much of NFT salesmanship. Funny how nobody re-registering or buying these early domains has plans to make websites for them. You probably heard the story of the owner of d/bitcoin refusing a multi-million dollar offer for it.

On the upside, the whole "Historical NFT" movement has brought a lot more attention to Namecoin.

In any case, thanks for your continued dedication to keeping this project moving, and to domob as well. Realized earlier today I've been commenting in this thread since 2014. Looking forward to trying out the new version of Core.

Namecoin Core 22.0 is released; the Manage Names tab is back!  https://www.namecoin.org/2022/08/02/namecoin-core-22.0-released.html


I would draw a distinction between "NFT's" and the "NFT community".  I think it's pretty clear that Namecoin names meet the literal definition of NFT's.  Long before the term "NFT" entered the lexicon, I would explain the difference between Bitcoin and Namecoin to newcomers by saying that the "coins" in Bitcoin are fungible (notwithstanding the criticisms the Monero community would justifiably make) while in Namecoin they are not.  The problem is that the community that has latched onto the term "NFT" is largely made up of scammers, get-rich-quick speculators, and other people that I don't want hanging around Namecoin's spaces.  In particular, we're seeing what are basically blockchain spam attacks from that community, where they've artificially inflated the resale value of historical names in the d/ namespace such that it is now profitable to mass-squat on them with zero intention of ever using these names for real websites.  I've been told by multiple good-Samaritan squatters that they have been repeatedly approached by people from the NFT community who are asking to buy high-value names for "collector" purposes; all of those good-Samaritan squatters told the NFT "collectors" to get fucked.  This behavior from the NFT community is harmful and AFAIK none of the Namecoin community is happy about it.

(What's the betting on whether any of these NFT collectors who are buying up Punycode domains have any idea that there's an open ticket on Namecoin's GitHub for blacklisting Punycode domains on the application layer due to security concerns?)


Daniel's statement remains accurate as far as I know, unless "contributions" includes wasting developers' time on things that don't involve code.  By the way, that "Devoted One" user whom you screenshotted DM'ed me on Twitter saying he wanted to fund Namecoin development, a bit of discussion happened, and then he ghosted as soon as I said he would need to pay the funds into escrow up-front.  I can't *prove* that he was trying to scam the Namecoin developers into adding features he wanted without paying us, but he's not really doing a good job of making me think otherwise.

There's been a lot of debate recently on Twitter among self-professed "NFT Historians" about whether or not "d/bitcoin" is the world's "first NFT", and whether Namecoin names or domains can be classified as "NFTs".

Its become kind of a big deal as people are now paying thousands of dollars for re-registered Namecoin assets; most notable of which are Punycodes, Twitter Eggs and early Namecoin identities.

Kind of interesting to watch it unfold.

While I'm coming around to accept the idea that, OK - even if domains and names expire they can still be considered "NFTs" - one thing that bugs me is that a lot of the pro-"Namecoin assets are NFTs" crowd references this Uwe Martens guy as an "OG Namecoin dev"...



He went by the name Trade Runner on this forum.


Just wondering if domob or biolizard89 could chime in on whether they know if this guy has ever actually contributed anything to Namecoin since this was posted:


Saw a lot of accusations from this guy on the forum, reddit, telegram, and now twitter, but have yet to find any actual code.

Hi,

NMC is a new project to me and I have downloaded the Namecoin Core Wallet on my Mac and the client say: "Connecting to peers" since 2 days (It still at 0%).

Can you help me please?

Thanks

- Mr. Dépression

We've just released ncdns v0.3.  This release adds Tor Browser configuration to the Windows installer, along with the usual round of assorted bugfixes and code quality improvements.  Huge thank you to NLnet, the Netherlands government, and Cyphrs for funding this release, and huge thanks to the various code contributors, including Hugo, Redfish, Lola, Yanmaani, and Nicolas.  https://www.namecoin.org/2022/05/27/ncdns-v0.3-released.html

In less exciting (but still good) news, I fixed DNS over TCP support in the Golang DNS seeder, which should improve reliability of the DNS seeds for Namecoin Core.  https://www.namecoin.org/2022/05/22/go-dns-seeder-tcp.html

  - There was pump to 9000 sat in early 2021 . Now cost of NMC is 7000 sat<9000sat.  But without this pump  you are right.  NMC cost growth from 1500 to 7000 sat.

We have had a few namecoin trades this week on FreeBitcoins.

Still looking for more liquidity:  https://freebitcoins.com/xchange/market/Namecoin

Indeed, one of the few coins which went positively through this bearish week Better than TUSD

Seems NMC is still in a bull market since early/mid 2021. It even reached a 4-year high in April. Could indicate that it's seriously undervalued ...

Namecoin is my stablecoin 

Guys I got it to work eventually on a friends computer who has windows OS so it must have been my machine giving some issue.Strange though because I used 2 different machines I had and neither worked but my friends did.We could only get the 3.10 version to connect though but 4.0 would not connect.I think it might be because older versions of windows or something.

Yes it is this version. I had previous version 3.10 which used to work and then updated to this 4.0 version which worked at first but after some time when I went to use it then it would not connect so tried the older version again which also would not connect either.

I will try again this evening and will report back accordingly.

Thanks.

---

I still cannot get electrum to connect. I have manually went through each server also but nothing works and am stuck on block 518352. Bitcoin electrum works fine so not sure what the problem is.

Is there a list of working servers available?

Thanks

Which version?  4.0.0b0?  Some of the servers were reportedly down when you posted that, but at least two should be back up now.  Is the issue still happening?

In other news:

• We added a new protection against forgetting to renew on time.  This one was a massive team effort, encompassing a bunch of Namecoin developers, as well as our friends from Tor, Mozilla, Monero, Cyberia, and Cyphrs.
  
• I'm adding another abstraction layer to ncp11, which makes Namecoin's TLS interoperability easier to audit.
  
• The Netherlands government (via NLnet) is funding Aerth and me with an additional 30k EUR for TLS development.
  

https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/01/ukraine_icann_domains/

Prepare yourself Namecoin.....

The wallet I downloaded is for windows and tried the 3 types for windows OS standalone/portable/installer so not sure why windows 10 would be the issue.

I don't want whole blockchain but only lite wallet to keep the coins I bought off the exchange so using the passphrase/seed code is the one I need.The older 3.3.10 wallet I first sent the coins to worked initially before but no longer works now because it won't connect either so not sure what the problem is.

Probably cuz your using Windows 10 OS?

No, really just download the Wallet and Blockchain, the Namecoin Blockchain is only 6 GB currently...........


Bitcoin Blockchain size is something like 300 GB or more IDK


Or you just wanting Electrum for the 13 Word Backup?

Hello namecoin community. I have tried all the latest electrum wallets for windows on windows 10 OS but cannot get any connection. It is set to auto connect. Any ideas why this is happening?
Thanks

Citation needed on all of these factual claims please.

Tor just issued a statement they will scrap the partnership. No reason to integrate a random old coin in their systems. You guys have a stain of hauteur on u. U make things up trying to insinuate that the coin u have been bagholding for 5 years, is worth a dime. U have become too gross in thinking that someone else cares about ur unicorn bags.

Is that a comment about the accessibility of the PQ discussion, or my p11mod article?

Meanwhile, I significantly improved the Golang DNS seeder, which should fix the long-standing issues with Namecoin Core failing to find peers.  https://www.namecoin.org/2022/01/29/go-dns-seeder-improvements.html

https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/boringssl


Yes, Quantum Key Exchange Algo's I understand this is what I was meaning and the only real transport encryption is Cha-Cha20 ATM which is already in browsers..............however websites linked with Cloud like to disable even that encryption standard so assuming anyone in the world who could possibly increase encryption and resources is not likely to advance it...........The world is still fighting the same fight Edward Snowden revealed.................the desire to weaken or backdoor all encryption standards.............

Quantum key TLS size would not be much bigger than traditional cryptography after compression..............


The Namecoin not being Quantum does not matter as it's only resolving the name...........not the data.........and Tor isn't likely to adopt Quantum Encryption anytime soon either but getting .bit readable websites like .onion away from Censorship is more important than PQ Encryption........for now...............

I view this as a long term strategy to force the issue of how the Quantum Computers can break things, which would force Bitcoin/Namecoin to adopt new Hardware/Algos...............As if websites .bit were using PQ-E they would attack Namecoin instead..........but if .bit websites take lazy approach they will just get attacked and people will think it's Op-Sec doing it........instead of Quantum Computers breaking it ect..........


Key Exchange:

The following quantum-safe algorithms from liboqs are supported (assuming they have been enabled in liboqs):

    
BIKE: bikel1, bikel3
    
CRYSTALS-Kyber: kyber512, kyber768, kyber1024, kyber90s512, kyber90s768, kyber90s1024
    
FrodoKEM: frodo640shake, frodo976aes, frodo976shake, frodo1344aes, frodo1344shake
    
HQC: hqc128, hqc192, hqc256†
    
NTRU: ntru_hps2048509, ntru_hps2048677, ntru_hps4096821, ntru_hps40961229, ntru_hrss701, ntru_hrss1373
    
NTRU-Prime: ntrulpr653, ntrulpr761, ntrulpr857, ntrulpr1277, sntrup653, sntrup761, sntrup857, sntrup1277
    
SABER: lightsaber, saber, firesaber
    
SIDH: sidhp434, sidhp503, sidhp610, sidhp751
    
SIKE: sikep434, sikep503, sikep610, sikep751


Open Quantum Safe Github is very interesting anyway................