If only they use the same hash algo. Fortunately, alt coins are using totally different or heavily modified hash algos and this is why they are alts not clones.
That's exactly what causes the vulnerability.
Topic: Namecoin was stillborn, I had to switch off life-support - page 4. (Read 46129 times)
Thank you for finding this bug OP. It appears to be confirmed in the Namecoin forum.
If only they use the same hash algo. Fortunately, alt coins are using totally different or heavily modified hash algos and this is why they are alts not clones.
A >50% attack is an economic attack. If you have the economic resources of honest miners split among different blockchains, an attack can focus on one at a time to take them out, and need fewer resources to successfully execute, as each network would have a lower hashrate than a single, non-fragmented network would have.
Combining all efforts in one blockchain (or several merge-mined blockchains) means that the threshold for a successful attack is higher, reducing the number of organizations that have the resources to be capable of executing it. In the case of POW security, scale is a major advantage.
Anyway, IMHO, Namecoin, while perhaps not perfect, has been running for a couple of years, already has a large community (relatively speaking) involved in it, and, for these reasons, is the best shot we have at a decentralized DNS. This bug is critical but fixable from what I've gathered.
If only they use the same hash algo. Fortunately, alt coins are using totally different or heavily modified hash algos and this is why they are alts not clones.
A >50% attack is an economic attack. If you have the economic resources of honest miners split among different blockchains, an attack can focus on one at a time to take them out, and need fewer resources to successfully execute, as each network would have a lower hashrate than a single, non-fragmented network would have.
Combining all efforts in one blockchain (or several merge-mined blockchains) means that the threshold for a successful attack is higher, reducing the number of organizations that have the resources to be capable of executing it. In the case of POW security, scale is a major advantage.
Anyway, IMHO, Namecoin, while perhaps not perfect, has been running for a couple of years, already has a large community (relatively speaking) involved in it, and, for these reasons, is the best shot we have at a decentralized DNS. This bug is critical but fixable from what I've gathered.
If only they use the same hash algo. Fortunately, alt coins are using totally different or heavily modified hash algos and this is why they are alts not clones.
That's exactly what causes the vulnerability. Splitting the processing power over a bunch of diverse blockchains increases the probability that each one will fall in succession because none of them have enough hashing power to survive the attack.
If only they use the same hash algo. Fortunately, alt coins are using totally different or heavily modified hash algos and this is why they are alts not clones. Note that Namecoin is merge-mined, so splitting hashing power isn't directly a valid criticism.
I was speaking in general, not specifically Namecoin. I don't think merge mining is what people mean when they talk about blockchain diversity anyway. If your threat model included nation-state level attackers, your only chance of success is to have the highest possible hash rate protecting it. Splitting the processing power over a bunch of diverse blockchains increases the probability that each one will fall in succession because none of them have enough hashing power to survive the attack.
Note that Namecoin is merge-mined, so splitting hashing power isn't directly a valid criticism. Rather the criticism is that Namecoin miners don't benefit from mining namecoin as directly as Bitcoin miners, screwing up the incentives, and because merge-mining is pretty much free for the miner so there isn't the incentive to mine properly. Both problems lead to Namecoin being less secure than it would be had it been designed to work on top of the Bitcoin blockchain.
I disagree. If bitcoin fails everything based on bitcoin blockchain will also fail. Diversity in alt blockchains is the best chance for success.
Diversity in blockchains weakens all of them.If your threat model included nation-state level attackers, your only chance of success is to have the highest possible hash rate protecting it. Splitting the processing power over a bunch of diverse blockchains increases the probability that each one will fall in succession because none of them have enough hashing power to survive the attack.
old post.. obviously was a long time ago and things have probably changed
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28696
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28696
I agree with theymos on this: the next namecoin should be implemented on top of the bitcoin blockchain.
I disagree. If bitcoin fails everything based on bitcoin blockchain will also fail. Diversity in alt blockchains is the best chance for success. there are also some other bugs as pm'd by libcoin.. please wait before updating.. there will be an official announcement eventually/soon
also namecoin-qt is NOT the official repo
I hope that someone uses this opportunity to create a decentralized DNS network that's actually good. Namecoin always had a lot of flaws which probably would have prevented any real success. In particular, DNS does not require its own currency.
Could DNS be implemented as smart property on top of something like Mastercoin?
Yes it could: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3343620
No, but it does require a serialization mechanism whose developers aren't actively hostile to it being used for information storage.
In other words, you can't use the bitcoin blockchain for this.
They'll be overruled by an economy majority eventually.In other words, you can't use the bitcoin blockchain for this.
By the time the bitcoin network starts processing very high transaction nobody is going to be able to micromanage what kinds of transactions are included.
Namecoin is resilient.
most innovative coin so far
most innovative coin so far
The death of Namecoin is greatly exaggerated.
the fix is being tested as we speak.
the bug isn't fatal
the bug isn't fatal
People need to stop trying to implement everything and the kitchen sink on top of the bitcoin block chain.... DNS and money are not related.. NMC was a foot forward for decentralized dns... Now that it has failed let it burn and from it let the Phoenix rise.. Decentralized DNs can be done in a way that rewards for work.. In fact it could reward with bitcoin... Domains could be registered with bitcoin and any fees and anything else could be sent out in transactions..
lets fix the problem instead of band aiding NMc
lets fix the problem instead of band aiding NMc
wait, people actually register names with namecoin instead of just merge mining it and selling for BTC...? 
Will
DIANNA has no money inside. Money are not domains and domains are not money. Bitcoin is money. This is main nmc design error i think. Will
http://dot-bit.org/forum/posting.php?mode=edit&f=2&p=6729
This was jsut a quick analysis plan.. so take with a grain of salt
Quote
Hash check is present in RPC command, but missing in the network code, so just need to copy-paste it to the right place. But we must somehow persuade people to upgrade.
I guess we should patch QT plus create a new fork of 3.50 with the fix (so people who are afraid of using the QT can still upgrade).
I guess we should patch QT plus create a new fork of 3.50 with the fix (so people who are afraid of using the QT can still upgrade).
Quote
We should do the following:
1. choose block XXXXXX in the future at which the fix will be enforced (hard fork)
2. between block 139872 and XXXXXX allow bad transactions, but do not write them to nameindex
3. after block XXXXXX reject bad transactions (and blocks containing them)
4. Force rescan of nameindex (not sure how to do properly; deleting nameindex manually would do it, but need something automatic)
Item 2 ensures that the chain is not rejected, but bad name_updates are harmless.
After we do the patch, we need to contact Khal so he updates blockexplorer. Then we probably need to contact exchanges and pools and ask them to upgrade.
1. choose block XXXXXX in the future at which the fix will be enforced (hard fork)
2. between block 139872 and XXXXXX allow bad transactions, but do not write them to nameindex
3. after block XXXXXX reject bad transactions (and blocks containing them)
4. Force rescan of nameindex (not sure how to do properly; deleting nameindex manually would do it, but need something automatic)
Item 2 ensures that the chain is not rejected, but bad name_updates are harmless.
After we do the patch, we need to contact Khal so he updates blockexplorer. Then we probably need to contact exchanges and pools and ask them to upgrade.
This was jsut a quick analysis plan.. so take with a grain of salt
wait, people actually register names with namecoin instead of just merge mining it and selling for BTC...?
Will
Will
Jump to: