Namecoin was stillborn, I had to switch off life-support

[gnscoins]

is it possible to check in the blockchain which domains have been affected by the exploit?

what could be done is if it's just the bitcoin domain to assign it back to who initially registered it (i guess that's possible)

any domain transfer from today to when patch is done would be reverted to who originally registered the domain, as it would be assumed to be a hack

[1714979228]

1714979228

[Peter Todd]

One issue I could see with implementing NMC on top of BTC is future scalability. Specifically, when BTC blockchain gets huge, it would mean that the datacenters that store bitcoin blockchain information would have to also double as DNS providers. I think a NMC blockchain would be much much smaller in size compared to bitcoin, since transactions on namecoin are much less frequest, even if they may hold more data. So keeping the two separate would allow for many more smaller, independent DNS providers, instead of limiting it to just the few bitcoin providers we'll likely end up with in the future.

Scalability is already a serious problem with namecoin.

Done correctly a namecoin v2.0 doesn't have to make the same scalability mistakes as with namecoin v1.0, and can be implemented in such a way that if Bitcoin itself remains secure and usable for people who don't have the full blockchain, Namecoin v2.0 will be too. For instance any kind of UTXO proof thing in Bitcoin makes this easy to accomplish by creating a system where a series of one or more UTXO proofs can be used to prove the correct ownership of the domain name, without requiring anyone to have a full copy of all domain names.

Note how it helps that domain registrations can have much higher "fees" than Bitcoin transfers and still be useful.

Incidentally this is the same line of thinking when it comes to colored coins; I'm writing a paper on that topic right now that I really need to finish off before I annoy killerstorm any further... 

[cassini]

Another way to see the blockchain wrt bitcoin.bit is http://explorer.dot-bit.org/n/1

... and it says the following:

On 2013-06-17 a NAME_NEW was issued for d/bitcoin, which is very unusual. There was no need for another NAME_NEW, as the name "d/bitcoin" was not expired yet.
On 2013-08-13 the "new" owner with IP 108.166.91.92 tried to make it look as if d/bitcoin is still owned by register.dot-bit.org
On 2013-10-15 (today) he issued a simple NAME_UPDATE.


To me it looks we haven't got a Namecoin problem, but we have a problem with namecoin.com (IP: 108.166.91.92).

EDIT: On the other hand:
http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1295&start=10

[Luckybit]

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?

[Financisto]

So who is going to create the new name coin chain?

Is there even a dev team?

Here is the announce thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6017.0

Dunno if the announcer called vinced is the main dev though...

[nkuttler]

There's also a thread in the namecoin forum: http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1295&sid=7c4a37c316c3a194415fe54e1b978a6a&start=0

[masterluc]

I always posted critics to namecoin design.

Welcome to DIANNA - Decentralized Internet Assigned Names and Numbers Authority, the mother of all records

https://dianna-project.org

Need volunteers.

[willphase]

wait, people actually register names with namecoin instead of just merge mining it and selling for BTC...? 

Will

[snailbrain]

http://dot-bit.org/forum/posting.php?mode=edit&f=2&p=6729

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).

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.

This was jsut a quick analysis plan.. so take with a grain of salt

[masterluc]

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.

[axilla]

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

[snailbrain]

the fix is being tested as we speak.

the bug isn't fatal

[ninjarobot]

The death of Namecoin is greatly exaggerated.

[cyberhacker]

Namecoin is resilient.

most innovative coin so far

[justusranvier]

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.

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.

[dacoinminster]

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3343620#msg3343620

[BitCoinNutJob]

fixed

https://github.com/namecoin-qt/namecoin-qt/commit/d70d01ff77310d3755891cb43cb2700b553019f4

[snailbrain]

fixed

https://github.com/namecoin-qt/namecoin-qt/commit/d70d01ff77310d3755891cb43cb2700b553019f4

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

[becoin]

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.

[snailbrain]

old post.. obviously was a long time ago and things have probably changed

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696