Is anyone planning a push for Namecoin acceptance?

[kano]

Yet more proof that Satoshi / all the other IDs came from Japan ( who the fuck is Cthulu ) and we all got screwed by manga watching noodle eating geeks.

Cthulhu is a reoccurring character in the works of H.P Lovecraft, an American writer of short horror stories. The reference has nothing to do with manga.

Check out the books on amazon, they are well worth reading.

Yes that's where Cthulhu 'he' originated ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu ),
but 'she' is also a manga/anime character that I posted a pic of before
( http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=11791 )
Obviously from the title of the manga/anime the name was taken from the original Lovecraft story.

[Lolcust]

Lolz, there is a magical girl anime about Cthulhu? Lovely, gotta fire up uTorrent

As for Namecoin, the people to push for its acceptance are called US law enforcement. The more domains they seize, the stronger need for Namecoin will be.

[sd]

Yet more proof that Satoshi / all the other IDs came from Japan ( who the fuck is Cthulu ) and we all got screwed by manga watching noodle eating geeks.

Cthulhu is a reoccurring character in the works of H.P Lovecraft, an American writer of short horror stories. The reference has nothing to do with manga.

Check out the books on amazon, they are well worth reading.

Yes that's where Cthulhu 'he' originated ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu ),
but 'she' is also a manga/anime character that I posted a pic of before
( http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=11791 )
Obviously from the title of the manga/anime the name was taken from the original Lovecraft story.

H.P. Lovecraft inspired a very large amount of fiction, that name will have been used a great number of times. As far as I've seen nothing improves on the original works but I've not seen or read everything.

Cthulhu is only a 'he' as the English language lacks a gender neutral way of referring to a sentient being.

The picture we want to embed in the blockchain would look something like this:

[bulanula]

Yet more proof that Satoshi / all the other IDs came from Japan ( who the fuck is Cthulu ) and we all got screwed by manga watching noodle eating geeks.

Cthulhu is a reoccurring character in the works of H.P Lovecraft, an American writer of short horror stories. The reference has nothing to do with manga.

Check out the books on amazon, they are well worth reading.

Yes that's where Cthulhu 'he' originated ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu ),
but 'she' is also a manga/anime character that I posted a pic of before
( http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=11791 )
Obviously from the title of the manga/anime the name was taken from the original Lovecraft story.

H.P. Lovecraft inspired a very large amount of fiction, that name will have been used a great number of times. As far as I've seen nothing improves on the original works but I've not seen or read everything.

Cthulhu is only a 'he' as the English language lacks a gender neutral way of referring to a sentient being.

The picture we want to embed in the blockchain would look something like this:

So now it is not manga anymore and it is a "he" !? Trying to recover the scam, are we ?

[makomk]

Namecoin WAS NOT designed as a vehicle to profit from, or to be easy to mine or even to be used in exchanges.

It was designed for the sole purpose of being an ALTERNATE DNS system and that's all.

Which still requires things like exchanges and nice GUIs. Even being able to access .bit domains is very user-unfriendly at the moment; actually registering them is positively painful.

Well technically, namecoin should have no value at all anyway.
It costs nothing to mine it if you do merged mining - i.e. it is free.

Right now, the software available for merged mining and the pools that support it are both a lot less tested and more unreliable than just mining Bitcoins, so there's definitely a cost to merged mining. At the moment I'm not sure the Namecoins I'm getting from MM are enough to compensate for the extra stales I'm seeing over a good BTC-only pool. Then there's the cost of developing and testing and setting up that software.

The negative side is (what I've said many times) it puts extra data in the bitcoin block-chain that has nothing to do with bitcoin

36 bytes of data per block - far smaller than even the smallest Bitcoin transaction. If you do just one test transaction you're bloating up the blockchan a lot more than merged mining. (The average Bitcoin block is somewhere in the 20-30 KB range these days IIRC, and that's going to increase if Bitcoin takes off.)

[kano]

...

The negative side is (what I've said many times) it puts extra data in the bitcoin block-chain that has nothing to do with bitcoin

36 bytes of data per block - far smaller than even the smallest Bitcoin transaction. If you do just one test transaction you're bloating up the blockchan a lot more than merged mining. (The average Bitcoin block is somewhere in the 20-30 KB range these days IIRC, and that's going to increase if Bitcoin takes off.)

Hmm 36? Where did you come up with that number?
The current merged BTC blocks are showing approx 46 extra bytes in the coinbase
(assuming none of the tx are fake required by namecoin - I don't know about that)

Eligius is merged mining and clearly at least one other pool since half of the merged BTC blocks say 'Eligius' before the namecoin extra crap.

Hmm be the first merged mining scamcoin and put scamcoin data in the bitcoin block-chain?
The next version of bitcoin allows for it and my request to remove merged mining from git was rejected.

[makomk]

Hmm 36? Where did you come up with that number?
The current merged BTC blocks are showing approx 46 extra bytes in the coinbase
(assuming none of the tx are fake required by namecoin - I don't know about that)

Whoops, forgot about the merkle tree size and merkle nonce; 46 bytes is correct.

Hmm be the first merged mining scamcoin and put scamcoin data in the bitcoin block-chain?
The next version of bitcoin allows for it and my request to remove merged mining from git was rejected.

As far as I know, the code in the official bitcoin client isn't enough to trivially support merged mining with.

[Gavin Andresen]

The next version of bitcoin allows for it and my request to remove merged mining from git was rejected.

kano, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am King of Bitcoin.

I told you that if you don't like the getmemorypool RPC method, you would need to gain consensus either on the Dev&Tech section of these forums or the bitcoin-dev mailing list. That's how bitcoin works-- rough consensus, not "submit requests to the King" or "petition the Central Committee."

[kano]

The next version of bitcoin allows for it and my request to remove merged mining from git was rejected.

kano, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am King of Bitcoin.

I told you that if you don't like the getmemorypool RPC method, you would need to gain consensus either on the Dev&Tech section of these forums or the bitcoin-dev mailing list. That's how bitcoin works-- rough consensus, not "submit requests to the King" or "petition the Central Committee."

No I have already in the past stated, in your defense, that you are not King of Bitcoin
However, it did seem you had the only say in allowing that commit into bitcoin.
Of course that discussion may have occurred somewhere else, but I have no references to it (and the commit request has none either)

OK I've created a rather bias post on the subject here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47774.0
Bias coz that's my opinion and I'm not going to hide it

[Iyeman]

now it's 10mbit plastic fiber link.

Fiber is actually very fine strands of glass (usually smaller than a strand of hair) protected by plastic.



Also browsing .bits for me was simple to setup. mainly because i run my own DNS server in my home, so it took 10 minutes to add the settings for .bits to pull info from the 2 public DNS servers.

http://dot-bit.org/HowToBrowseBitDomains

[bulanula]

The next version of bitcoin allows for it and my request to remove merged mining from git was rejected.

kano, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am King of Bitcoin.

I told you that if you don't like the getmemorypool RPC method, you would need to gain consensus either on the Dev&Tech section of these forums or the bitcoin-dev mailing list. That's how bitcoin works-- rough consensus, not "submit requests to the King" or "petition the Central Committee."

All hail to the glorious leader !

[jtimon]

With 10x the transaction volume block size will be closer to ~500K so that 46 bytes is 0.01% additional space requirement.  Hell if you put 46 bytes from 100 different alt chains it might increase the chain 1%.

If there were 100 alt chains merged mining with bitcoin, bitcoin could be adapted to save space in merged mining.
All chains could share a merkle tree as maaku describes here:

"We've eliminated the master/alt chain distinction entirely. The mining header contains a Merkle tree of block chain headers, one for each crypto-token system. This allows infinitely many crypto-tokens to be merge-mined without affecting performance or requiring embedding portions of the master chain into the altchain."
http://www.freicoin.org/implementations-details-and-bounty-7-3-btc-t13-10.html#p158

But I don't really think that's a priority for bitcoin right now (well, your numbers kind of prove it).
I don't think that what bothers kano is not the extra data, but having other currency with the same difficulty as bitcoin's. You know, like Vladimir that sees merged-mining as "parasite the bitcoin chain and destroying the 21 M limit".