namecoin are low, why?

[kokjo]

https://exchange.bitparking.com/main - buy at 0.0121 used to be at 0.020 -

WHY?

[1715475009]

1715475009

[1715475009]

1715475009

[1715475009]

1715475009

[1715475009]

1715475009

[1715475009]

1715475009

[finway]

Hashing power rises due to merged mining, cause selling pressure.

[o]

Merged mining gives extra namecoin as income, people dont understand namecoin so they immediately exchange them for bitcoin which they trust more.

[kokjo]

oh i see. but is that the whole truth? it is not many small sells, but a few big ones.
speculation?

[ElectricMucus]

Coordinated sell-off buy people who fear loss of BTC dominance.

[MaxSan]

which is daft, the inherit value of namecoin grows significantly with time.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Or the number of namecoins being produced is now ~5x what it was for last month prior to merged mining.  For most of those miners they are simply revenue.  A BTC proxy.  Instead of getting 1 BTC they are getting 1.2 BTC per unit of work however to collect that 20% bonus requires selling the coins.

Daily supply for sale has increased 5x but demand hasn't.  Demand likely has increased some because namecoins future is more viable now but it hasn't increased 5x.

Namecoins, widgets, or bennie babies it doesn't matter.  Increased supply relative to demand = lower prices.  

[eleuthria]

NMC are now being produced mostly by people that have no actual interest in namecoin.  They are essentially worthless to them, and they will take whatever they can get.  You can't expect them to remain valuable when people get them for doing literally nothing they weren't doing already.

[speeder]

Also the value of namecoin is not THAT important anyway, what is important is that NMC miners keep the DNS working.

[bitlane]

Also the value of namecoin is not THAT important anyway, what is important is that NMC miners keep the DNS working.

...and in turn, adds strength to the BTC, who's powerful network it (NMC) gets a free mining ride on

[o]

It would be good to see how those features patch work on the alt crytocurrency first, just like the wallet encryption 

[kokjo]

It would be good to see how those features patch work on the alt crytocurrency first, just like the wallet encryption 

why, fork the client implement your own features... it does not have wallet encryption, it does not even have a wallet. but it supports multiple of them.
im making my own client for the bitcoin network. there is no need to use the satoshi client. im coding my client in python.

[steelhouse]

NMC are now being produced mostly by people that have no actual interest in namecoin.  They are essentially worthless to them, and they will take whatever they can get.  You can't expect them to remain valuable when people get them for doing literally nothing they weren't doing already.

Just as in bitcoin.  Supply and demand.  The reason solidcoin is now ahead of bitcoin is the 5 per block.  All mining is basically printing money.  The price will only rise if people have to buy with cash , goods or services.  In other words, 5 years from now.  If demand exceeds new supply then they will also rise.

[bulanula]

NMC client ( namecoind ) does not currently support wallet encryption OR -rescan command so you can download blockchain from other place.

No wonder price is dropping. Current DNS system is working just fine.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Just as in bitcoin.  Supply and demand.  The reason solidcoin is now ahead of bitcoin is the 5 per block.  All mining is basically printing money.  The price will only rise if people have to buy with cash , goods or services.  In other words, 5 years from now.  If demand exceeds new supply then they will also rise.

ScamCoin is only ahead of Bitcoin in your mind.  I guess the 5 per block ignores the 12M premined.  The 1M mined in first 24 hours and the other 1.5M mined before bait and switch to later users.

14.5M premined & mined before switching the rules = ~11 years worth of coins generated before the rules changed.  I would like to point out that Bitcoin still doesn't have 14.5M coins mined and it certainly didn't have a early adopter orgy where "broken" difficulty adjustment resulted in 1M coins minted in 24 hours. 

LOLZ.

[bulanula]

Just as in bitcoin.  Supply and demand.  The reason solidcoin is now ahead of bitcoin is the 5 per block.  All mining is basically printing money.  The price will only rise if people have to buy with cash , goods or services.  In other words, 5 years from now.  If demand exceeds new supply then they will also rise.

ScamCoin is only ahead of Bitcoin in your mind.  I guess the 5 per block ignores the 12M premined.  The 1M mined in first 24 hours and the other 1.5M mined before bait and switch to later users.

14.5M premined & mined before switching the rules = ~11 years worth of coins generated before the rules changed.  I would like to point out that Bitcoin still doesn't have 14.5M coins mined and it certainly didn't have a early adopter orgy where "broken" difficulty adjustment resulted in 1M coins minted in 24 hours. 

LOLZ.

King RealScam begs to differ .

[jtimon]

oh i see. but is that the whole truth? it is not many small sells, but a few big ones.
speculation?

Big BTC miners are now mining NMC ??

In the long run I think is logic NMCs to be above their price before merged mining (+/- $0.30) because their use is the same and the security has improved. But in the short-term they have to drop, because new miners don't want to hold nmc like the old ones do.
Probably the drop caused by miners has made some hoarders and speculators sell their share.

[bulanula]

NMC price at 0.008 now. MM sure is helping.

[DeathAndTaxes]

The price of NMC is not as important as the security of NMC.

Remember NMC wasn't designed to be a currency.  People who want to register domains can use NMC to do so.  The price point isn't material however without MM NMC would be very vulnerable to a 51% attack.

[bulanula]

The price of NMC is not as important as the security of NMC.

Remember NMC wasn't designed to be a currency.  People who want to register domains can use NMC to do so.  The price point isn't material however without MM NMC would be very vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Yes but I still think a low NMC value is not very good for miners relying on MM to boost profits

[kokjo]

The price of NMC is not as important as the security of NMC.

Remember NMC wasn't designed to be a currency.  People who want to register domains can use NMC to do so.  The price point isn't material however without MM NMC would be very vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Yes but I still think a low NMC value is not very good for miners relying on MM to boost profits

then you should do good by buying alot of them, and make prices raise for some time.

[bulanula]

The price of NMC is not as important as the security of NMC.

Remember NMC wasn't designed to be a currency.  People who want to register domains can use NMC to do so.  The price point isn't material however without MM NMC would be very vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Yes but I still think a low NMC value is not very good for miners relying on MM to boost profits

then you should do good by buying alot of them, and make prices raise for some time.

You wish. Until these cryptocurrencies are not properly tested over some time I consider it foolish to put real USD into them. I never even bought BTC at $0.58

[kokjo]

The price of NMC is not as important as the security of NMC.

Remember NMC wasn't designed to be a currency.  People who want to register domains can use NMC to do so.  The price point isn't material however without MM NMC would be very vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Yes but I still think a low NMC value is not very good for miners relying on MM to boost profits

then you should do good by buying alot of them, and make prices raise for some time.

You wish. Until these cryptocurrencies are not properly tested over some time I consider it foolish to put real USD into them. I never even bought BTC at $0.58

NMC's function is not as a currency, but as a way to secure domain names. -> price of namecoins, price of a domain.

[bulanula]

The price of NMC is not as important as the security of NMC.

Remember NMC wasn't designed to be a currency.  People who want to register domains can use NMC to do so.  The price point isn't material however without MM NMC would be very vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Yes but I still think a low NMC value is not very good for miners relying on MM to boost profits

then you should do good by buying alot of them, and make prices raise for some time.

You wish. Until these cryptocurrencies are not properly tested over some time I consider it foolish to put real USD into them. I never even bought BTC at $0.58

NMC's function is not as a currency, but as a way to secure domain names. -> price of namecoins, price of a domain.

Well seems I am late to the game. Sony.bit and Google.bit and Apple.bit and Microsoft.bit and ... are all taken up now

[casascius]

Namecoin is actually a worthless project at the moment.  Nobody in their right mind is going to accept Namecoin as a DNS system, except for one audience that Namecoin isn't yet addressing...

TOR HIDDEN SERVICES.

Why?  The world doesn't demand a new cryptographic DNS system, it's happy with the one it's already got.  The fact that Wikileaks and Pokerstars lost their names is of little concern to the world, especially since they can both easily register under another TLD with no significant impact.  If the world were looking for an alternate DNS, least of all, it sure isn't going to take one where virtually every prominent trademark has been cryptographically squatted on by anonymous wanna-be profiteers.

But Tor hidden services have no working DNS, and a side consequence is that it's rife with phishing sites and people can't tell if they're at the right site because the names are non-memorable.  If the address for Silk Road were "silkroad.onion", people could distinguish the real deal from phishing attempts without having to memorize "ianx6zasdflkajsdflkj" or whatever.

If Namecoin development went toward making it the de facto name registry for hidden services, it suddenly would be valuable and useful.  Otherwise, namecoins are as worthless as ixcoins.

The next biggest REAL thing that namecoin could potentially accomplish would be to serve as a registry of the correct SSL certificates for websites.  THAT is something the world actually is demanding, i.e. the current system is actually broken.

[bulanula]

Namecoin is actually a worthless project at the moment.  Nobody in their right mind is going to accept Namecoin as a DNS system, except for one audience that Namecoin isn't yet addressing...

TOR HIDDEN SERVICES.

Why?  The world doesn't demand a new cryptographic DNS system, it's happy with the one it's already got.  The fact that Wikileaks and Pokerstars lost their names is of little concern to the world, especially since they can both easily register under another TLD with no significant impact.  If the world were looking for an alternate DNS, least of all, it sure isn't going to take one where virtually every prominent trademark has been cryptographically squatted on by anonymous wanna-be profiteers.

But Tor hidden services have no working DNS, and a side consequence is that it's rife with phishing sites and people can't tell if they're at the right site because the names are non-memorable.  If the address for Silk Road were "silkroad.onion", people could distinguish the real deal from phishing attempts without having to memorize "ianx6zasdflkajsdflkj" or whatever.

If Namecoin development went toward making it the de facto name registry for hidden services, it suddenly would be valuable and useful.  Otherwise, namecoins are as worthless as ixcoins.

The next biggest REAL thing that namecoin could potentially accomplish would be to serve as a registry of the correct SSL certificates for websites.  THAT is something the world actually is demanding, i.e. the current system is actually broken.

No wonder price is now 0.007. Really a shame. Even damn ScamCoin is higher than that now !

[casascius]

No wonder price is now 0.007. Really a shame. Even damn ScamCoin is higher than that now !

The bright side is if somebody wants to start putting it together, Namecoin is already quite a start.

That said, they could also dump the Namecoin block chain and start it over.  It depends on how much its current developers would be perceived to contribute to the project, since they would be presumed to be in favor of keeping the block chain.

To get it going though, what really needs to happen is for the Tor / Vidalia / Polipo people to get involved and decide how it could integrate into Tor.  It might be considered much more credible now that merged mining is giving it a solid base of hashing power.

[DannyM]

Namecoin is actually a worthless project at the moment.  Nobody in their right mind is going to accept Namecoin as a DNS system, except for one audience that Namecoin isn't yet addressing...

TOR HIDDEN SERVICES.

Why?  The world doesn't demand a new cryptographic DNS system, it's happy with the one it's already got.  The fact that Wikileaks and Pokerstars lost their names is of little concern to the world, especially since they can both easily register under another TLD with no significant impact.  If the world were looking for an alternate DNS, least of all, it sure isn't going to take one where virtually every prominent trademark has been cryptographically squatted on by anonymous wanna-be profiteers.

But Tor hidden services have no working DNS, and a side consequence is that it's rife with phishing sites and people can't tell if they're at the right site because the names are non-memorable.  If the address for Silk Road were "silkroad.onion", people could distinguish the real deal from phishing attempts without having to memorize "ianx6zasdflkajsdflkj" or whatever.

If Namecoin development went toward making it the de facto name registry for hidden services, it suddenly would be valuable and useful.  Otherwise, namecoins are as worthless as ixcoins.

Yes providing tor hidden service names is a great use for namecoin:

http://dot-bit.org/Domain_names#Value_field

The next biggest REAL thing that namecoin could potentially accomplish would be to serve as a registry of the correct SSL certificates for websites.  THAT is something the world actually is demanding, i.e. the current system is actually broken.

TLS support is potentially the most important application of namecoin:

http://dot-bit.org/Domain_names#TLS_support
 

[finway]

Yes providing tor hidden service names is a great use for namecoin:
http://dot-bit.org/Domain_names#Value_field



TLS support is potentially the most important application of namecoin:
http://dot-bit.org/Domain_names#TLS_support
 

So basically i'll support translation between .bit and .onion ?

[bulanula]

Price now at 0.008. We need to get this TOR thing going to raise the price folks !

I mean even SC is getting better rates than NMC.

[casascius]

What really needs to happen is for the TOR project (or actually, the projects that provide DNS resolution for Tor installations, which would be Vidalia and/or Polipo) to implement namecoin DNS resolution support into their software.

That might be a little more complex than it sounds.  For example, the DNS resolution needs to be secure.  Tor is also for TCP, not for UDP, and normal DNS only UDP, so implementing it might require adding support for DNS over TCP.

But yeah... if this gets done right and adopted, namecoins might have a reason to shoot up in value.

I swear I read somewhere that someone had patched the sources of Polipo to support Namecoin resolution, it's a fork or something.  Lobbying for this patch (or some derivative of it) to be included in the standard build might be a worthy goal for Namecoin enthusiasts if they want to see their coins increase in value.

[kokjo]

What really needs to happen is for the TOR project (or actually, the projects that provide DNS resolution for Tor installations, which would be Vidalia and/or Polipo) to implement namecoin DNS resolution support into their software.

That might be a little more complex than it sounds.  For example, the DNS resolution needs to be secure.  Tor is also for TCP, not for UDP, and normal DNS only UDP, so implementing it might require adding support for DNS over TCP.

But yeah... if this gets done right and adopted, namecoins might have a reason to shoot up in value.

I swear I read somewhere that someone had patched the sources of Polipo to support Namecoin resolution, it's a fork or something.  Lobbying for this patch (or some derivative of it) to be included in the standard build might be a worthy goal for Namecoin enthusiasts if they want to see their coins increase in value.

dns over tcp is not neccesary. the namecoin client could provide a udp dns server, that is pointing to a .onion address, or directly map the address to a virtual host that tor assigns.

or you could just proxy the whole shit.

[bulanula]

What really needs to happen is for the TOR project (or actually, the projects that provide DNS resolution for Tor installations, which would be Vidalia and/or Polipo) to implement namecoin DNS resolution support into their software.

That might be a little more complex than it sounds.  For example, the DNS resolution needs to be secure.  Tor is also for TCP, not for UDP, and normal DNS only UDP, so implementing it might require adding support for DNS over TCP.

But yeah... if this gets done right and adopted, namecoins might have a reason to shoot up in value.

I swear I read somewhere that someone had patched the sources of Polipo to support Namecoin resolution, it's a fork or something.  Lobbying for this patch (or some derivative of it) to be included in the standard build might be a worthy goal for Namecoin enthusiasts if they want to see their coins increase in value.

dns over tcp is not neccesary. the namecoin client could provide a udp dns server, that is pointing to a .onion address, or directly map the address to a virtual host that tor assigns.

or you could just proxy the whole shit.

Nice idea. With that attitude I guess NMC will soon rise to 0.1 BTC

Who thought of giving BTC miners free NMC and who thought of MM ? They deserve a double facepalm right now. Price is utterly miserable and network is not really that much safer.

[kokjo]

Nice idea. With that attitude I guess NMC will soon rise to 0.1 BTC

Who thought of giving BTC miners free NMC and who thought of MM ? They deserve a double facepalm right now. Price is utterly miserable and network is not really that much safer.

no they don't the namecoin network, is as secure as the bitcoin network.

[casascius]

What really needs to happen is for the TOR project (or actually, the projects that provide DNS resolution for Tor installations, which would be Vidalia and/or Polipo) to implement namecoin DNS resolution support into their software.

That might be a little more complex than it sounds.  For example, the DNS resolution needs to be secure.  Tor is also for TCP, not for UDP, and normal DNS only UDP, so implementing it might require adding support for DNS over TCP.

But yeah... if this gets done right and adopted, namecoins might have a reason to shoot up in value.

I swear I read somewhere that someone had patched the sources of Polipo to support Namecoin resolution, it's a fork or something.  Lobbying for this patch (or some derivative of it) to be included in the standard build might be a worthy goal for Namecoin enthusiasts if they want to see their coins increase in value.

dns over tcp is not neccesary. the namecoin client could provide a udp dns server, that is pointing to a .onion address, or directly map the address to a virtual host that tor assigns.

or you could just proxy the whole shit.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but we both understand that UDP doesn't work over Tor, right?

I am not sure that having a full-blown namecoin client will be consistent with the goals of Tor - at least to the extent such a client participates in the block chain.  It certainly can be an option, the same way power users can run relays and bridges... but I think the Tor development community will consider it a non-starter if using Namecoin depends on every user downloading a large block chain file.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Nice idea. With that attitude I guess NMC will soon rise to 0.1 BTC

Who thought of giving BTC miners free NMC and who thought of MM ? They deserve a double facepalm right now. Price is utterly miserable and network is not really that much safer.

1) How is the network not really secure?
2) If price of NMC has higher but it earned you a lower rate than Bitcoin so that you never mined it were you really losing anything?

How exactly are you hurt by higher hashing power on MMC network and lower prices?

[kokjo]

What really needs to happen is for the TOR project (or actually, the projects that provide DNS resolution for Tor installations, which would be Vidalia and/or Polipo) to implement namecoin DNS resolution support into their software.

That might be a little more complex than it sounds.  For example, the DNS resolution needs to be secure.  Tor is also for TCP, not for UDP, and normal DNS only UDP, so implementing it might require adding support for DNS over TCP.

But yeah... if this gets done right and adopted, namecoins might have a reason to shoot up in value.

I swear I read somewhere that someone had patched the sources of Polipo to support Namecoin resolution, it's a fork or something.  Lobbying for this patch (or some derivative of it) to be included in the standard build might be a worthy goal for Namecoin enthusiasts if they want to see their coins increase in value.

dns over tcp is not neccesary. the namecoin client could provide a udp dns server, that is pointing to a .onion address, or directly map the address to a virtual host that tor assigns.

or you could just proxy the whole shit.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but we both understand that UDP doesn't work over Tor, right?

I am not sure that having a full-blown namecoin client will be consistent with the goals of Tor - at least to the extent such a client participates in the block chain.  It certainly can be an option, the same way power users can run relays and bridges... but I think the Tor development community will consider it a non-starter if using Namecoin depends on every user downloading a large block chain file.

yes UDP does not work on TOR. it is stream based.
my idea:
unknowing client app -> namecoin dns server: give me the address of "something.bit"
namecoin dns server resolves this, if it point to a ip, return it.
if it points to a .onion address. ask tor to map it, to an fake ip address(often 127.0.X.X), and return that.
if it is not ending with .bit, resolve it as normal.
namecoin dns server -> client app: "something.bit" is at 12.34.56.78
client app connects to ip(12.34.56.78). works as usual.

there is no udp packets going out of your computer.

[ElectricMucus]

Afik DNS Servers normally have TCP support (Bind does) and I think this is even in the RFC - for clients or network that cannot support UDP to use TCP instead.

[kokjo]

Afik DNS Servers normally have TCP support (Bind does) and I think this is even in the RFC - for clients or network that cannot support UDP to use TCP instead.

you are right:

All general-purpose DNS implementations MUST support both UDP and TCP transport.

[wobber]

Difficulty is now 199569.39467 and will be 472334.32184  (136.68% growth) in about   1d 0hr 21m  according to allchains.info
What will happen to the price?
And what will happen to the price when the diff gets equal with bitcoin?

I suspect that namecoin will rally again to it's 0.07 BTC price again.

[BitcoinPorn]

I actually kind of wish Namecoin was just go away as far as being something traded.  I like my digital currencies to have only one purpose.   A neat idea, should just go the way of Ripple or whatever.  Where it has some kind of user base, but not enough to do anything.

[jtimon]

I actually kind of wish Namecoin was just go away as far as being something traded.  I like my digital currencies to have only one purpose.   A neat idea, should just go the way of Ripple or whatever.  Where it has some kind of user base, but not enough to do anything.

I don't understand what you hate about ripple or namecoin.
Although not as much as LETS, Ripple is kind of local, so if you don't get the people around you to use it, you can't use it.
I'm currently trying to use ripple in my town through villages.cc, but I guess it will take time until enough people want to use it.
It seems hard to start like LETS.
For namecoin, I guess you would prefer a domain chain with no currency where the miners mine for fees paid in bitcoin. That's possible.
Namecoin can always be forked for that, it was just easier and more efficient to do it this way.
But why is so important not to create a new currency with a chain service?
The reason why no services are built in bitcoin is to avoid to store all that data within the blockchain. I think having each service in a different chain (with merged mining) is better for everyone. This way users can download only the chains they need.
But I don't understand what is so bad about a chain with a service using its own currency to pay its miners.
Instead of buying domains directly with bitcoins you can buy namecoins with bitcoins and then domains with namecoins. Not a big difference.

[robocop]

namecoin is high
actually the first place compared with solidcoin, litecoin and more

[eleuthria]

I actually kind of wish Namecoin was just go away as far as being something traded.  I like my digital currencies to have only one purpose.   A neat idea, should just go the way of Ripple or whatever.  Where it has some kind of user base, but not enough to do anything.

NMC must be traded though, in order to serve its eventual purpose.  In an ideal world, NMC hits an adoption rate and people buy the NMC to register their domain, rather than setting up graphic card miners and waiting until they mine enough NMC to register a domain.  So it MUST have an exchange for those people that don't want to mine the NMC themselves.  Of course, right now its essentially just another altcoin, lots of trading/speculative value, no mainstream use (although NMC is more useful than any altcoin at the moment).

namecoin is high
actually the first place compared with solidcoin, litecoin and more

Until just recently, NMC exchanges were very low (0.005-0.006), but a few big buyers got the price to triple.  Of course, the difficulty is also about to triple compared to what it was not long ago, due to more merged mining adoption (BTC Guild added about 50% more hashpower to the network).

[casascius]

In order for NMC to be valuable, it must be useful for its intended purpose: domain name registry.

I believe I have hashed out ad nauseum the world's non-demand for a new cryptographic top level domain consisting of nothing but cybersquatting trolls, just on the premise that Wikileaks and PokerStars had to switch TLD's and were inconvenienced for a day or two.  The NMC trading price should make that fairly clear.  I am surprised to see continuing discussion about the .bit domain - something absolutely no one in the world (outside of NMC) cares about, certainly not enough to go and reconfigure their browser or their network settings for.

Until NMC is adapted to the few places where there's an unsatisfied demand for cryptographic name registry services - namely, the .onion domain - to the point it is usable by the average downloader of the Tor bundle with only minimal (e.g. 128k) bandwidth - NMC is a worthless coin.

[cbeast]

There must be something useful for namecoin. I don't find darknets to be very fast. Perhaps namecoin can serve as an intermediary to finding darknet content.

[TylerJordan]

Greetings, I've read this thread with interest as I'd like to be able to use namecoin to link to TOR hidden services and possibly to I2P eepsites.

I'm the author of AnonymOS  http://anonymos.earthsociety.org. A Gnu-Linux operating system with TOR, I2P, and Bitcoin client pre-installed. It also has many tweaks for enhanced security and privacy -- I daresay it's the most secure OS (of it's kind) on the planet.

But it needs to be better.  I'm soon to release the next version with installer, currently it's only a live-cd or you have to buy a USB drive from me to use it installed.

The beauty of this all rolled into one OS is that it makes it very easy for someone who has little knowledge to take advantage of anonymizing services -- and bitcoin too. Critically -- I2P is a router by default (unlike TOR), with many built in apps and services. The more people that use AnonymOS, the stronger the I2P network becomes -- in fact it can grow in power much more quickly than TOR has and will soon overtake TOR.

I'm seeking advice and knowledge on how to implement namecoin in either this edition, or in a later server edition that includes in-built web server and software for creating TOR-hidden-service blogs.

I see that the US government is moving more and more toward censoring people and I think we really have to start jumping into these alternative networks en masse. For example -- http://tradewithdave.com/?p=8567

Thanks for any help and thoughts.

Cheers

[markm]

Open Transactions "nyms" (pseudonyms) also are hashes, so are similarly just un-memorable gobbledegook to humans. Server and currency contract IDs similarly.

Thus it could be useful to have namespaces in namecoin to allow looking up a server or currency or nym's ID using a memorable name.

This could also help a little against spoofing of currencies that become popular; instead of relying upon some random website somewhere that tells you to import some contract from their site, expecting it to be the contract of some well known well reputed currency, and just trusting it, you could look up the currency by its famous name (careful here though of fonts that fool you by using characters that look similar to other characters) in a currency ID namespace in namecoin to find its ID as recorded in namecoin by, one might hope, the actual issuer/signer of its actual correct contract.

In other news, my Open Transactions server, still in alpha testing stage, now supports bitcoins (BTC), britcoins (UKB), botcoins (MBC), and devcoins (DVC) in addition to namecoins (NMC), enabling trading among them all. (The bottleneck of course is I only want to issue the corresponding digital tokens in numbers no greater than the number of secured by hardcoded checkpoint in clients coins I have as reserves.

That means one cannot simply send me coins and I issue tokens, because the coins you send me will not be secure enough to be a good secure reserve to back tokens with until after the release of clients that have hardcoded checkpoints protecting the block you sent those coins in from attackers trying to unravel the blockchain.

How long it typically takes for more than half of the hashing power of a blockchain to update to code that includes such updated hardcoded checkpoints probably varies from chain to chain. SO this will proably have to be a slow-growing exchange. Hopefully though it will be all the more secure for taking its time in this way.

-MarkM-

[BitcoinPorn]

I'm the author of AnonymOS  http://anonymos.earthsociety.org. A Gnu-Linux operating system with TOR, I2P, and Bitcoin client pre-installed. It also has many tweaks for enhanced security and privacy -- I daresay it's the most secure OS (of it's kind) on the planet.

But it needs to be better.  I'm soon to release the next version with installer, currently it's only a live-cd or you have to buy a USB drive from me to use it installed.

The beauty of this all rolled into one OS is that it makes it very easy for someone who has little knowledge to take advantage of anonymizing services -- and bitcoin too. Critically -- I2P is a router by default (unlike TOR), with many built in apps and services. The more people that use AnonymOS, the stronger the I2P network becomes -- in fact it can grow in power much more quickly than TOR has and will soon overtake TOR.

I'm seeking advice and knowledge on how to implement namecoin in either this edition, or in a later server edition that includes in-built web server and software for creating TOR-hidden-service blogs.

I really like what you are doing.  The above is one of the reasons I find it hard to support Namecoin, I don't like the fact that there is value attached to Namecoin that has nothing to do with it's services.  In theory itself I cannot find the benefits to Namecoin being a commodity on top of it being something of use.  Either be a "money" or be a "service", but when you try to be both, it will be automatically rejected every time.   

The value of the services Namecoin offers exceeds the value of it as a coin.
The value of the name coin "Coin" exceeds the value of it's services it renders.

It seems only one of these statements can be true.  I know I am simplifying things, but I am trying to understand them as I blurt all this out, what is it about the Namecoin technology that cannot be replicated and put out as some kind of open source program that people could just run to keep things going?  Would somehow the "miners" rule the Namecoin-bit-web because they control the hashing power?  In fact, would the 51% attacks that threaten coins be something that could threaten Namecoin, and if that is the case, and just being theoretical here, if that were to happen, what would happen to the domains and sites?