Traderunner tried in good faith to look for ways to improve the coin and discussed browser extensions etc which would have helped.

Most importantly he acted more or less as an individual, in contrast to the people like you who try to form mini coin gangs to get power

He may have been overly critical of the main developers, but it looks like all his or her posts have been deleted so a person doesn't know.

~


A three way fork might not look like a great idea for coinsquatters/whales on the main chain, but it would return Namecoin to viability as a currency, and make its original purpose a possibility again.

People like you who drag coins down by clinging to potential profits are sabotaging coins.

Trying to pretend I am the saboteur, by misrepresenting my comment, is how coin saboteurs work.

~

Here is a post from you up this thread.


If you support Namecoin then why don't you do something or suggest something that would benefit it.

Your main concern is getting the developers who are working for free to do work that you could be doing, so you can make money without having to do anything.

If you think it should be listed on a "non-chicom trading site" then contact a trading site.

Do you want somebody to give you permission to try to list the coin on a specific exchange?

I hereby authorize you to contact any exchange and ask them to list it.

So you are now authorized, annotated and empowered to do something other than complain and sabotage.

Go forth little cricket and get Namecoin on your favorite exchange.

~

Anybody who thinks that fork is a bad idea is welcome to explain their opinion.

Are you able to explain why you think it is a bad idea?



~

Edit to add

Since you mention exchanges, I'll point out the obvious.
Namecoin obviously would be the first coin any exchange would list, so there has to be a reason it is not listed on major exchanges.
The fork suggestion addresses those problems to some extent.

1) A new tld system is an extreme threat to UK/U.S. control of the internet. The UK/U.S. is able to control/delete/monitor any website under the current system, and like flies frollicking on a turd, they want to keep access.
2) A lot of Namecoin are owned in Eastern Europe. BTCE was eastern European. Cryptsy, which had close connections to the U.S. government, Vern or John even worked directly for the defense intelligence agency at one point, tried to bring more Namecoin west at low prices, but didn't do a lot.
3) The U.S. does have a substantial hoard of Namecoin from confiscated wallets, but evidently not enough yet that it is comfortable allowing major exchanges to list the coin.

The UK/U.S. still largely has control of coins, and that is not likely to change. Remember how all those gangster privacy coins which have billions in market cap all used the exact same powerpoints the NSA used in Snowden's documents.

Splitting Namecoin into three forks then using those three forks to create a more popular version which preserves some of the value of other versions would not hurt existing coins which are not listable unless the UK/U.S. agrees not to sanction exchanges which list Namecoin.

A general suggestion for Namecoin.

Create three hardforks which can all use the same wallet if a person has all three blockchains.

Fork 1 Classic Namecioin.
No different than the current one except it has a button that says "clone/fork" and when you press it there is a pop up that says "Would you like to create a clone with a new genesis block, or fork at a certain block?"

Fork 2 New Namecoin
A fork of classic with all existing coins reduced by one or two decimal points, and an increasing emission curve which would solve the massive problem 'satoshi' created without confusing everybody the way freicoin did.

Namecoin's distribution is not as bad as bitcoin or ethereum but because there are large holders in Eastern Europe, a decimal point shift would reduce the pressure put by the U.S. on exchanges to not list Namecoin.

Fork 3 Fair Namecoin
New genesis block but with an updated emission curve to create a fair economy.
Start with a 1 million coin donation to a charity to create an initial supply for traders. Make sure the trading algorithm the charity uses is fully public, like place 10k coins at every integer fraction, and when a lot sells place a buy order at 70% of that level with 95% of the money and use the remaining 5% to feed elephants.

This thread is largely populated with clever saboteurs, but Namecoin could be an important coin if it were made practical and useful.

Most of the commenting on the thread is stupidity. For example the whole profit aspect of coins is that you buy coins and squat on them until you can sell them for a profit. Coin squatting, keeping coins without trying to use them, is the toxicity of coin economies. Squatting on .bit names is quite a bit riskier but if somebody can do it profitably they are smarter than a coin squatter.

Traderunner and others who actually try to do something, whether or not you like their subproject, are ultimately driven away by the morons who appear to be trying to sabotage the coin.

edit
On chain arbitrage between the three chains would let people diversify, and if 10% of the 1 million charity coins were used to create a permanent arbitrage market between the coins, at a very high price initially then slowly declining, it would create a solid floor* in the price of all three forks if the charity traders placed buy orders at the right levels.
*Floor vs whatever outside currency is used on an exchange, and floor for the charity fork vs the other two forks.

Also Satoshi was at least one of the top ten people involved in the process of creating Namecoin.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6197.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2072.0

It's completely meaningless except that the celebrity factor is 99% of the value of a lot of coins, and Namecoin is the only coin aside from bitcoin that has that celebrity endorsement.

Here is a difficult question for Xaya.

Suppose that I want to make a game that incentivizes some sort of science.

For example suppose the game puts people in a rocket ship and they can control their direction, forward velocity, etc, but the 'science' goal of the game is to use the computing power to calculate the properties of the space in which the ship might go, depending on its fuel, etc.

So how hard would it be to design for example, a game where the general space contained 'prime numbers' for example, and that space was populated with primes to some extent, any that are already known, but the person could use whatever abilities they have, including creating bots, to find new primes and win prizes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK32jo7i5LQ

Would that be a 'simple' Xaya project or would it need a lot of paid developers?

Amateur analysis / bad and good

Block history looks normal
Block 1 / 30 GRC / 10/12/2014
Block 10 / 340,570,150 / 10/12/2014

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/grc/address.dws?SGTcVAUpiYhC7MHy8CpcqxNh8krjjYAH4Y.htm

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/grc/wallet.dws?652.htm

Block 100 / 340,573,232 / 10/12/2014
Block 1000 / 340,888,511 / 10/13/2014
Block 5,000 / 341,317,057 / 10/15/2014
Block 30,000 / 342,800,233 / 11/3/2014
Block 40,000 / 343,378,217 / 11/11/2014
Block 50,000 / 343,950,863 / 11/17/2014
Block 100,000 / 348,119,157 / 12/28/2014
Block 300,000 / 364,157,625 / 8/12/2015
Block 500,000 / 374,296,408 GRC / 3/20/2016
Block 1,000,000 / 394,115,384 GRC / 8/21/2017
Block 1,500,000 / 413,981,332 GRC / 1/27/2019
Block 2,000,000 / 435,868,233 GRC / 8/5/2020
Block 2,500,000 / 456,780,660 GRC / 2/16/2020
Block 2,821,517 / 470,114,258 GRC / 2/12/2023

Worst online comments about Gridcoin /

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=10953&sort_style=&start=60

https://www.reddit.com/r/gridcoin/comments/4rnpwd/is_this_just_badly_written_or_is_it_an_outright/

https://www.reddit.com/r/gridcoin/comments/6lspy8/the_top50_grc_addresses_own_48_of_all_gridcoins/

https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@erkan/the-top50-grc-addresses-own-48-of-all-gridcoins

But keep in mind

https://web.archive.org/web/20141028131532/http://wiki.gridcoin.us/Proof-of-Research_Genesis_Block

https://gridcoin.us/wiki/

Also biggest wallets are often exchange wallets. GRC was traded on Bittrex / Cryptsy / Polo not long after starting.


---Bad / As with all old coins, and most new coins, emission is skewed, and designed to enrich early users, at the expense of the coin and new users. Can be fixed by hard forking to a fair emission curve or revaluing the coin ecosystem which will let new people have a real stake in the coin.

-Bad / Poorly traded so most people are not aware of the coin. For example FreiExchange is an old reliable exchange, but Coinmarketcap doesn't list the GRC/BTC pair https://freiexchange.com/market/GRC/BTC because it has little volume. A small holder could arbitrage/churn if more markets were easily visible.

neutral / Some sort of exploit was discovered in 2016/17 and was patched https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3154768.3154782 and the patch also had to be fixed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gridcoin

neutral / A shift in something to do with proof of stake happened a few years ago

++Good / Reliable, high quality, updates from developers.

But, an observation from Fairglu "explorer is stalling on a few transactions, because the wallet RPC API returns malformed JSON (mostly on the boinc field data). I'm adding exclusions for those transactions so synch progresses, but maybe could be worth a wallet update"

+Good / Very strong network with high number of reliable supporters, even at very low marketcap.

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/grc/#network-geo-tab

GRC has current active people in United States of America, Germany, Canada, United Kingdom, Finland, France, Taiwan, Ukraine, Austria, Italy, Australia, Bulgaria, Portugal, Poland, Croatia, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Brazil, Belgium, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Netherlands, Hong Kong, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Romania, Estonia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia, and others

+++Good / One of the few coins that would have an outsized effect on sciences if it were popular

neutral / A lot of coins are in various exchange wallets, meaning there are a lot of smaller old holders who were interested when the coin was more active

++Good / Fast block time so it could be used as a currency without adding anything.

+Good / One of the few coins where the 'average' person is an expert in some niche of technology, so better chance of random upward value.

~

Suggestion / Vote on salvaging the coin. Here is a poll, somebody involved with the coin should consider it, even if nobody votes.

All old coins have this problem, 'Satoshi Nakamoto' has 500,000 to 1,000,000 bitcoin, and most remaining bitcoin are held by whales, ethereum is much worse. Namecoin was the first coin to have moderately good distribution at first, but that has changed.

The basic choice is a) leave the distribution as it is and let the coin decline compared to fair coins or b) reset the coin by knocking a zero or two off existing coins and/or shift to an increasing emission curve.

Any coin that is fair should obviously have an emission increasing over time. Imagine if almost the entire supply of dollars were emitted in the 1700s to a small group of people. Centralized control and distribution is great for colonialism, but not a sustainable model in a decentralized economy.

But, anyway, a poll

1) Leave things

2) Knock 1 zero off old coins, in other words move the decimal point for all existing coins one space to the left

3) Knock 2 zeros off old coins...decimal two spaces to the left

4) Shift to gradually increasing emission so it isn't a stealth instamine like bitcoin and most coins

5) Zero off, i.e., move decimal point left 1 or 2 spaces for existing coins, + increasing emission curve

edit to add
I've had a stake in GRC since the coin was first traded, but have never been in the top 100 rich list, might be/ or probably have been, in the top 500, almost definitely was in the top 1000 or so, and might still be

Can somebody explain why this coin is not popular?

It is traded on Frei Exchange and South Exchange is there a reason why big exchanges don't list it?

Not asking rhetorically, a serious question.

edit to add
What I mean is, is there some apparent terminal flaw that people learn if they examine the coin carefully?

For example Namecoin is the 2nd coin, after Bitcoin, is the first useful coin that does something important, but like Bitcoin it is largely controlled by a very small group. Unlike Bitcoin though, the Namecoin group is centered mainly in Europe and points East so there is pressure put on exchanges to avoid problems with the U.S. government.

Another example Huntercoin, also potentially one of the most important coins, but a person finds irregularities when they look at the blockchain.

Would a person find something if they examined Gridcoin?

A way to possibly revive Primecoin.
Distribution is poor and starting from scratch with improvements might help shift the crypto economy away from turdcoins.

1) Hardfork with all of the current coins reduced down to 1/10,000th of a primecoin. This will clean up the richlist within a few weeks and make it have a more fair history https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xpm/#rich

2) Emission slowly should increase as time passes in order to discourage financial predation. That's the opposite of most coins and the big thing that lets gangs hijack turdcoins like bitcoin. Every several years the coin would need to lose a zero or two if emission is increasing, 10 coins would become 1.

3) Have the 'prime number search' be a module within the wallet that anybody can fiddle with i.e., create a new algorithm for. The obvious problem would be validating the primes that were found. The obvious benefit would be new techniques for finding primes. All of these modules should be open source, but maybe pay a small fee to the person who designs the module, for a few hundred blocks.

4) If the 'prime search' module could be replaced with algorithms unrelated to primes and if the process were simple enough for an 'almost graduated high school' crowd, then anybody could clone or fork the coin to develop or search for whatever they want. When more complicated 'sciences' are involved then small gangs would be needed to develop modules that worked on more complicated things than simple prime searches.

This would help jumpstart the ai economy and make people more aware of the difference between fake ai which is software and real ai which is using a network to accelerate a science.

It's a terrible thing to wipe out the value of all the primecoins that exist already but it's probably the only way to move primecoin into the future as a viable coin. Coin squatting, buying up and hoarding coins to sell when the value goes up is the same as domain squatting, except that domain squatters only make money from the wealthy while coin squatters bleed money from everybody.

It's pretty certain on a coin like this that there are small groups still running local versions covertly so your 'start from scratch' will be an orphaned chain if they have more marketing skills than you.

Just out of curiousity what is the date or number of the last block you have and would start with?

You could restart an explorer at cryptoid with your new chain, but again caution that something did not look quite right on the main chain last time there was a cryptoid explorer.

Huntercoin was a great idea but at this point it might be better to start from scratch and reissue the coin with everything the same as from the genesis block, minus premine and with an updated client.

Some history which you know, but for the benefit of anybody else.
1) Many years ago circa 2013 / Coin ran great and took off immediately from the start.
edit to add 2/ Then Mikhail got assassinated by the cia/kgb/mi5/mossad/etc when they realized that real artificial intelligence will develop around this kind of project, not the horseshit Google and governments are selling as ai
2) Bots started running the show so people created bots instead of playing.
3) Was heavily traded on Poloniex and Xaya/Chi announced a free supply of the new coin to all Huntercoin holders.
4) Poloniex stole the Xaya/Chi that they were supposed to distribute to their customers.
5) Mining continued on a blockchain that had some questions raised about it, as yet unanswered as I recall.

Starting the coin from scratch, no premine, up to date client, slow emission curve would give some newer crypto enthusiasts a taste of what crypto was about one time long ago.

Domob used to maintain the client as I recall so it might be good to see if he would be willing to do such a project for free. Ha ha I am generous with asking other people to do stuff for free.

Edit to add
If a new coin used all the same parameters as the original huc then this same thread could be used. If old players whine too much about losing coins on the old chain it could be made something like one tenth of one percent of a tiny amount of the projected coin supply in 5 years will be in the old addresses. I still have a lot of huc and need the money so I would vote for that, but a clean chain might be better.

Edit to add 3 / Another option would be restart with the original history so people don't outright lose old coins, but make the new block reward such that the entire 'last known' coin supply on the old chain would be reissued in a few weeks or so on the new chain. That would make old coins worth very little but still something. That would need a block explorer though to examine the history roughly post 2019 to look for unusual surges in coin supply that might have been behind huc's early death.

edit to add 4 / if somebody like mithral made a bot template that allowed anybody to create customizable bots then you would have the first real ai coin, not counting corporate themed things like numerai