Namecoin design issues

[Galahad]

I've been trying to read about namecoin so I can decide whether to buy any or not but I'm coming across some quite worrying design concerns.

My main concern is this one:

There is a fixed limit to coins the same as Bitcoin (21 million) but each time you register a .bit domain it expends 0.01nmc permanently. The .bit domains also have to be renewed regularly (every 250 days). So does this mean that eventually we'll run out of coins or that we'll not have enough coins to meet demand for domains and other storage? I assume that they are mined at the same rate resulting in a fixed supply over time. So I think this comes to 2.1 billion units to store data in? That's quite a lot but maybe not for all purposes besides domain storage.

Are there any other possible design flaws with Namecoins?

[snailbrain]

I've been trying to read about namecoin so I can decide whether to buy any or not but I'm coming across some quite worrying design concerns.

My main concern is this one:

There is a fixed limit to coins the same as Bitcoin (21 million) but each time you register a .bit domain it expends 0.01nmc permanently. The .bit domains also have to be renewed regularly (every 250 days). So does this mean that eventually we'll run out of coins or that we'll not have enough coins to meet demand for domains and other storage? I assume that they are mined at the same rate resulting in a fixed supply over time. So I think this comes to 2.1 billion units to store data in? That's quite a lot but maybe not for all purposes besides domain storage.

Are there any other possible design flaws with Namecoins?

in the future possibly/probably you may be able to release locked coins when you release/expire a domain..

also.. the plan of action was for the cost per name to be reduced over time, until eventually it is almost zero (or zero).. for now it is fixed at 0.01 as this seems the best value...

i wouldn't worry about this for now ... there are ongoing discussions about fees atm

[Galahad]

in the future possibly/probably you may be able to release locked coins when you release/expire a domain..

also.. the plan of action was for the cost per name to be reduced over time, until eventually it is almost zero (or zero).. for now it is fixed at 0.01 as this seems the best value...

i wouldn't worry about this for now ... there are ongoing discussions about fees atm

I see what you mean about moving the decimal place so they cost 0.001 instead. I suppose this would happen after many coins have already been spent meaning there would be less to split down into smaller pieces but perhaps it's not an issue.

My other concern is that how is this resistant to censorship? Surely an ISP can still block thepiratebay.bit just as easily as they can block thepiratebay.se?

[virtualmaster]

in the future possibly/probably you may be able to release locked coins when you release/expire a domain..

also.. the plan of action was for the cost per name to be reduced over time, until eventually it is almost zero (or zero).. for now it is fixed at 0.01 as this seems the best value...

i wouldn't worry about this for now ... there are ongoing discussions about fees atm

I see what you mean about moving the decimal place so they cost 0.001 instead. I suppose this would happen after many coins have already been spent meaning there would be less to split down into smaller pieces but perhaps it's not an issue.

My other concern is that how is this resistant to censorship? Surely an ISP can still block thepiratebay.bit just as easily as they can block thepiratebay.se?

The number of destroyed namecoins until now must be about 100 000.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94894.msg1050285#msg1050285
By the actual design the amount of destroyed namecoins will decrease over time.
The total number of possible namecoins are 21 million - destroyed coins.
You can join to the Namecoin Forum and tell us if you are supporting the coin-destruction or the coin-lock(locked coins would be released when domain is released) solution.
Each solution has its advantage and disadvantage.

The ISP can block it but all ISPs over the world must block it otherwise some people still can access it.
But the .bit domain name cannot be confiscated like it can happen with usual domains. Confiscating .bit domains is like confiscating Bitcoins, it can only happen if you give them your private key.(or you transfer it to another address)

[Galahad]

The number of destroyed namecoins until now must be about 100 000.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94894.msg1050285#msg1050285
By the actual design the amount of destroyed namecoins will decrease over time.
The total number of possible namecoins are 21 million - destroyed coins.
You can join to the Namecoin Forum and tell us if you are supporting the coin-destruction or the coin-lock(locked coins would be released when domain is released) solution.
Each solution has its advantage and disadvantage.

The ISP can block it but all ISPs over the world must block it otherwise some people still can access it.
But the .bit domain name cannot be confiscated like it can happen with usual domains. Confiscating .bit domains is like confiscating Bitcoins, it can only happen if you give them your private key.(or you transfer it to another address)

Coin destruction or coin lock: I think coin lock must be better so far but I haven't read enough about each option.

On censorship: I think that unless it is available to everyone then censorship has won. Only a few fringe uses having access to content would be terrible. In the UK there are basically 6 choices for broadband internet. A law affecting them could force these few providers into censoring internet and that would be it for the internet. Anti-censorship policies often miss this fact, assuming that censorship only happens by taking down a website. So I can't see how namecoin can possibly help if that's its purpose.