I know namecoins are only "meant" for registering domain names... but what if people start to use them like bitcoins? Or is that impossible since there is an unlimited supply of namecoins? iirc
Whats wrong with that..
Topic: Is Namecoin a possible threat to the Bitcoin blockchain? (Read 5356 times)
Whats wrong with that..
It would be great if there were a pledge/bounty just for the sharing work between chains only and not for the whole namecoin project. That feature will be useful not only for namecoin but for any alternative chain.
Also, is there a market to trade namecoins for bitcoins?
Is there a GUI client that allows you to manage your bitcoins and your namecoins altogether?
Also, is there a market to trade namecoins for bitcoins?
Is there a GUI client that allows you to manage your bitcoins and your namecoins altogether?
Actually merged mining is already available on the testnets, no bounty needed.
See here and here.
NMC/BTC exchange: https://exchange.bitparking.com/main
You can also trade NMC for BTC and USD on BTCex but I'd be very careful cause they don't have a good reputation.
Yes there is a market, bit still not GUI interface in final stage...
It would be great if there were a pledge/bounty just for the sharing work between chains only and not for the whole namecoin project. That feature will be useful not only for namecoin but for any alternative chain.
Also, is there a market to trade namecoins for bitcoins?
Is there a GUI client that allows you to manage your bitcoins and your namecoins altogether?
Also, is there a market to trade namecoins for bitcoins?
Is there a GUI client that allows you to manage your bitcoins and your namecoins altogether?
Just to stop all the FUD spreading. Namecoins are not unlimited supply, in fact they are in MORE limited supply than bitcoins.
They have the same 21 million coin issuance algorithm AND some coins are spent out of existence (63,000) in the early days to prevent name squatting and hoarding by early adopters.
tl;dr Namecoins are more scarce than bitcoins.
Indeed.
Code:
pblock->vtx[0].vout[0].nValue = GetBlockValue(pindexPrev->nHeight+1, nFees);
line 1092 :
Code:
int64 GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 4 years
nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
{
int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 4 years
nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
Just to stop all the FUD spreading. Namecoins are not unlimited supply, in fact they are in MORE limited supply than bitcoins.
They have the same 21 million coin issuance algorithm AND some coins are spent out of existence (63,000) in the early days to prevent domain name squatting and hoarding by early adopters.
tl;dr Namecoins are more scarce than bitcoins.
They have the same 21 million coin issuance algorithm AND some coins are spent out of existence (63,000) in the early days to prevent domain name squatting and hoarding by early adopters.
tl;dr Namecoins are more scarce than bitcoins.
I know namecoins are only "meant" for registering domain names... but what if people start to use them like bitcoins? Or is that impossible since there is an unlimited supply of namecoins? iirc
Who says they're meant only for registering domain names? There's even a poker site to gamble them. Namecoin is everything Bitcoin is, but with additional features. Even if those features never take off it's still at least equal to Bitcoin.
Question: what would happen if Tycho temporarily turned the entirety of Deepbit to the Namecoin blockchain (for 20 minutes, say)
There could be a problem. The issue is that difficulty would go up, but once difficulty goes up too much, it never comes back down. Because it's not worth it to mine, and difficulty only resets after ~2000 blocks.
It might be better if the difficulty were to adjust every N days or M blocks whichever comes first, but that's not the case now (with BTC or namecoin).
I haven't think about that problem before.
A supercomputer could slow the bitcoin chain by mining a lot one week and then stop doing it.
Your solution should work though.
Are developers aware of this?
Difficulty can increase 4x at most per 2016 blocks. This is in the code.
Question: what would happen if Tycho temporarily turned the entirety of Deepbit to the Namecoin blockchain (for 20 minutes, say)
There could be a problem. The issue is that difficulty would go up, but once difficulty goes up too much, it never comes back down. Because it's not worth it to mine, and difficulty only resets after ~2000 blocks.
It might be better if the difficulty were to adjust every N days or M blocks whichever comes first, but that's not the case now (with BTC or namecoin).
For namecoins there is as upper limit to the increase and a lower limit to the decrease of difficulty adjustments. The upper is 4x and the lower us divided by 4. So you can't increase difficulty any faster that 4 times per 2016 blocks and the difficulty can't decrease more than 4 times per 2016 blocks.
Question: what would happen if Tycho temporarily turned the entirety of Deepbit to the Namecoin blockchain (for 20 minutes, say)
There could be a problem. The issue is that difficulty would go up, but once difficulty goes up too much, it never comes back down. Because it's not worth it to mine, and difficulty only resets after ~2000 blocks.
It might be better if the difficulty were to adjust every N days or M blocks whichever comes first, but that's not the case now (with BTC or namecoin).
This is a very good idea and worth some more discussion. I don't see a downside icbw ... belt and braces approach.
I haven't think about that problem before.
A supercomputer could slow the bitcoin chain by mining a lot one week and then stop doing it.
Your solution should work though.
Are developers aware of this?
A supercomputer could slow the bitcoin chain by mining a lot one week and then stop doing it.
Your solution should work though.
Are developers aware of this?
It's countered by people's greed and transaction fees.
Basically, imagine a pool got a large number of miners intent on doing something like this, so they say they are going to remove their pool from the network for a week so that less blocks are created.
There are three problems with this:
1) The incentive of remaining miners increases, meaning they will bring more hashing power to the network if they have any on reserve.
2) The incentive of those transferring Bitcoin to add transaction fees increases, because they will get confirmations quicker.
3) The incentive of those participating in the boycott to "cheat" by connecting to an existing pool still on the network increases because they will make coins both before and after the difficulty reassessment whereas the miners sitting out will only make coins afterwards.
I didn't mean a pool. Just a non profit attacker. Maybe a bitcoin competitor? I don't know, paypal, facebook, the fed, the ecb...They would just set the difficulty too high.
The time limit for readjusting makes a lot of sense to me.
I haven't think about that problem before.
A supercomputer could slow the bitcoin chain by mining a lot one week and then stop doing it.
Your solution should work though.
Are developers aware of this?
A supercomputer could slow the bitcoin chain by mining a lot one week and then stop doing it.
Your solution should work though.
Are developers aware of this?
It's countered by people's greed and transaction fees.
Basically, imagine a pool got a large number of miners intent on doing something like this, so they say they are going to remove their pool from the network for a week so that less blocks are created.
There are three problems with this:
1) The incentive of remaining miners increases, meaning they will bring more hashing power to the network if they have any on reserve.
2) The incentive of those transferring Bitcoin to add transaction fees increases, because they will get confirmations quicker.
3) The incentive of those participating in the boycott to "cheat" by connecting to an existing pool still on the network increases because they will make coins both before and after the difficulty reassessment whereas the miners sitting out will only make coins afterwards.
Question: what would happen if Tycho temporarily turned the entirety of Deepbit to the Namecoin blockchain (for 20 minutes, say)
There could be a problem. The issue is that difficulty would go up, but once difficulty goes up too much, it never comes back down. Because it's not worth it to mine, and difficulty only resets after ~2000 blocks.
It might be better if the difficulty were to adjust every N days or M blocks whichever comes first, but that's not the case now (with BTC or namecoin).
I haven't think about that problem before.
A supercomputer could slow the bitcoin chain by mining a lot one week and then stop doing it.
Your solution should work though.
Are developers aware of this?
It might be better if the difficulty were to adjust every N days or M blocks whichever comes first, but that's not the case now (with BTC or namecoin).
That's a pretty good idea.
Question: what would happen if Tycho temporarily turned the entirety of Deepbit to the Namecoin blockchain (for 20 minutes, say)
There could be a problem. The issue is that difficulty would go up, but once difficulty goes up too much, it never comes back down. Because it's not worth it to mine, and difficulty only resets after ~2000 blocks.
It might be better if the difficulty were to adjust every N days or M blocks whichever comes first, but that's not the case now (with BTC or namecoin).
Imagine a world where lots of people start their own Xcoin block chains, where X = a word designating the usage of coins generated (for example, Namecoin). Purchasing coins in different chains would be like having coins redeemable in multiple ways, such as being able to register a domain, since each chain would have innovative technological features that give them value. The original Bitcoin has great features in itself and has a level of trust that no other block chain will ever achieve. So I think that the original Bitcoin will be valuable regardless of competition since it has this high level of trust. But nothing is stopping anyone from creating a new type of coin with additional features in a new block chain. Coins with useful features will succeed and have value, while less useful coins will garner less interest. New types of coins and original coins can both be valuable.
Yes, cos they are can be used for something useful (not like BTC - it`s fiat). They are not competitors maybe, but they are a niche product.
Namecoins are destroyed in the process of domain registration. So, i` am have doubts, that they can serve as money.
And thanks for "its about control" pointing.
And thanks for "its about control" pointing.
Why would that be a problem? They are redeemed for something valuable in the process of domain registration. But before registration, they can be stored and traded indefinitely. Nobody is forced to redeem them, and some people might end up just trading them without ever purchasing a domain name. Think of them as vouchers or certificates, which certainly can serve as money.
Question: what would happen if Tycho temporarily turned the entirety of Deepbit to the Namecoin blockchain (for 20 minutes, say) and produced a ridiculous number of Namecoins at the 1000x easier difficulty level? 20 minutes without a block is not outside the range of ordinary probability (and so would not be noticed) and he'd only be out maybe 20 BTC for those on Pay-Per-Share, which he could easily cover with his current pool fees. Is the work completed for Namecoin compatible with current Bitcoin mining software?
For people who wants to know where namecoin came from and what problem does it try to solve: http://bitcoinweekly.com/articles/technological-jailbreak-bitcoin-to-namecoin
Jump to: