[announce] Namecoin - a distributed naming system based on Bitcoin

[snailbrain]

khal ; ... good stuff with the v0.8.2 update work.

snailbrain ; checking over new code now, great to see you forking code off old namecoin and working through adding the new stuff, that should make it much easier for khal to pull back into mainline namecoin so both namecoin-qt and namecoind are in same repo like bitcoin-qt and bitcoind.

should compile now.. please try again

[khal]

Last blocks validated by my 2 nodes :
- mainnet : 11610 (block rejected with bad PoW)
- testnet : 1045  (block rejected with bad PoW)

The 0.8 version "disconnect" from a node as soon as it receives an invalid block. As merged mined blocks are transmited with other blocks while you bootstrap the network, I didn't get all blocks I could've download.

After restarting namecoind several times, here are the last blocks accepted :
- mainnet : 19199 (19120 is a merged mined block with a non standard hash : d8a7c3e01e1e95bcee015e6fcc7583a2ca60b79e5a3aa0a171eddd344ada903d
- testnet : 4031 (4032 has not the required difficulty. Maybe another testnet rule has been changed)

[khal]

khal, you are the man. Will you increase the fees and the space limit for the new version? Should we have a poll maybe?

We shouldn't make more changes than those already present in the 0.8 version, to facilitate the beta phase and limit the cause of potential bugs and to find them faster.

So, all this should go in the v3.50 and we will publish a new release.

Those changes require a hard fork, so we need to decide a block number after which they will take effect (how much time you think is needed to wake up all namecoin users ? :p).

Concerning the fees, what is the best model to choose for :
- default fees of the client for standard transactions
- required minimum fees for standard transactions
- default fees of the client for name transactions
- required minimum fees for name transactions

For infos :  https://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=503

should compile now.. please try again

Should it work with mingw (cross-compiling for windows under linux) and linux ? (I didn't try and I don't have required lib/tools yet)



Edit: my opinion on fees : simplier = better => Force normal fees on all name_* tx (no free tx) + keep the 0.01 locked NMC on name_new.

=> 1NMC = near 1$. Parity soon :p (http://dot-bit.org/tools/domainCost.php?unit=USD&cost=1)

[snailbrain]

I believe so, but need people to test/feedback to fix any issues.. it compiles in mingw in windows

_______

if the qt is completed soon (with full nmc commands) + NMC goes on mtgox (as is the rumour for mid June?) .. this may wake up some NMC users .. maybe


I think changing the fees need to be thought about thoroughly (after the above?)...

Need to reduce spam, but also think about NMC's potential value in the future:

What makes a coin Valuable?

Hash Rate(security)? - NMC is second to bitcoin (due to merge mining)
Total Number of Coins? - < 21 million (less than BTC.. less due to lost coins.. not a lot though)
Is it going to die? - highly unlikely, unless btc does?
Age (stability)? The Oldest Altcoin and not just a copy.. actually does something unique... and has infinite possible uses.
Usage? - lots of things, but nothing which really increases it's value (unless .bit domains take off)..  would be good if some system was used in which users have to "top up" their NMC accounts with say 1 or 10 NMC, to be able to use some features (e.g. send a message), maybe it costs 0.0001... this would go to the miners... of course if we used the NMC block chain for messaging, it would increase the blockchain size.. another problem...

Personally i think NMC is massively under valued.. in a logical sense you would think nmc should be valued at 1:1 BTC (at a minimum) .. but you can't use it for anything which would "increase" it's value.... currently...
I remember when it was once at 0.1 nmc/btc..

Khal:
Do you know why sendtoname is causing the client to crash (even on original namecoind 3.50), windows only (well, me only).. same problem with QT and original namecoind 3.50.

[virtualmaster]

An adjustment proposal for .bit registration/renewal to make more:
- justice by the registration - shorter name, more fee
- more traffic - it should increase the namecoin traffic and animate the consumption of namecoins
- limit mass holding of good names

Possible Solution:
1. Domain registration and renewal fee for .bit changes depending how long is the domain name. Namecoin destruction could also change or remain the same for everybody.
- names with up to 3 letters, 10 times higher fee, anyway they are not many of them
- names with 4 to 5 letters, 5 times higher fee
- names with 6 to 7 letters, double fee
- names with more than 7 letters remains with the same fee - so everybody can afford a .bit name
2. Domain registration and renewal fee for .bit remains the same for everybody but it should be introduced a namecoin binding which will be received back at the end of the registration/renewal period on a change address. That could be solved with the time shifted transaction in the future. Namecoin binding 1 year.
- names with up to 3 letters, 10 namecoin binding, anyway they are not many of them
- names with 4 to 5 letters, 5 namecoin binding
- names with 6 to 7 letters, 2 namecoin binding
- names with more than 7 letters, 1  namecoin binding

[khal]

I believe so, but need people to test/feedback to fix any issues.. it compiles in mingw in windows

Ok, will try to test it a bit, but will try to compile it first :p

Do you know why sendtoname is causing the client to crash (even on original namecoind 3.50), windows only (well, me only).. same problem with QT and original namecoind 3.50.

I tested it again on my computer (linux) and it was ok.
Command used: ./namecoind sendtoalias khal 0.0001
Result: 0.0001NMC sent to N1KHAL5C1CRzy58NdJwp1tbLze3XrkFxx9
Namecoin record: ./namecoind name_show id/khal
{
    "name" : "id/khal",
    "value" : "{ \"email\" : \"khal@dot-bit.org\", \"bitcoin\" : \"1KHAL8bUjnkMRMg9yd2dNrYnJgZGH8Nj6T\", \"namecoin\" : \"N1KHAL5C1CRzy58NdJwp1tbLze3XrkFxx9\" }",
}

[snailbrain]

I believe so, but need people to test/feedback to fix any issues.. it compiles in mingw in windows

Ok, will try to test it a bit, but will try to compile it first :p

Do you know why sendtoname is causing the client to crash (even on original namecoind 3.50), windows only (well, me only).. same problem with QT and original namecoind 3.50.

I tested it again on my computer (linux) and it was ok.
Command used: ./namecoind sendtoalias khal 0.0001
Result: 0.0001NMC sent to N1KHAL5C1CRzy58NdJwp1tbLze3XrkFxx9
Namecoin record: ./namecoind name_show id/khal
{
    "name" : "id/khal",
    "value" : "{ \"email\" : \"khal@dot-bit.org\", \"bitcoin\" : \"1KHAL8bUjnkMRMg9yd2dNrYnJgZGH8Nj6T\", \"namecoin\" : \"N1KHAL5C1CRzy58NdJwp1tbLze3XrkFxx9\" }",
}

weird.. have had this problem for a long time.. just tried to recreate, to get the log
sendtoname d/khal 0.0001 .. always caused crash (Even a couple of days ago)... now it's working. nevermind

[khal]

weird.. have had this problem for a long time.. just tried to recreate, to get the log
sendtoname d/khal 0.0001 .. always caused crash (Even a couple of days ago)... now it's working. nevermind

Hum, I tested sendtoalias (which is another command, only in my branch), so it may not have helped you...
But I confirm that sendtoname works for me too.

[marcus_of_augustus]

weird.. have had this problem for a long time.. just tried to recreate, to get the log
sendtoname d/khal 0.0001 .. always caused crash (Even a couple of days ago)... now it's working. nevermind

Hum, I tested sendtoalias (which is another command, only in my branch), so it may not have helped you...
But I confirm that sendtoname works for me too.

khal .. I tested sendtoname with some small amount 0.001 nmc I think, and it added a fee of 0.01 ... is there a standard fee for sendtoname of 0.01nmc or was it something else that added the fee?

[snailbrain]

my opinion on fees : simplier = better => Force normal fees on all name_* tx (no free tx) + keep the 0.01 locked NMC on name_new.

the 0.01 for name_new is the 0.01 which is destroyed?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Someone's spamming the blokchain with 300-450k blocks ... what's the plan for fees?

[khal]

khal .. I tested sendtoname with some small amount 0.001 nmc I think, and it added a fee of 0.01 ... is there a standard fee for sendtoname of 0.01nmc or was it something else that added the fee?

Same thing happened to me. After verification, it is the anti-dust mecanism :p
Do not send less than 0.01NMC to avoid it (another thing to update ?).

my opinion on fees : simplier = better => Force normal fees on all name_* tx (no free tx) + keep the 0.01 locked NMC on name_new.

the 0.01 for name_new is the 0.01 which is destroyed?

No coins are lost anymore since a long time.

A name_new is composed like that :
- 1 tx with the remainder of your coin (the change)
- 1 tx with an amount of 0.01NMC sent to you + a hash of (randomValue + yourName)

To create a name_firstupdate with the previous name, you must provide the random value and spend the previous 0.01 coins in this transaction (in bitcoin words : you sign the previous coins to prove you own it and then, you are able to spend it) and spend it to yourself again.

To create a name_update, you do exactly the same thing, except you can give an address you don't own on the command line to transfer the name to another person, which will be able to sign the received tx to update the name.

So, a name HAS a value of 0.01NMC at least.

When a name expire, the 0.01NMC stay there, locked.
There is currently no code able to read that name tx and spend it to a standard bitcoin tx (the network doesn't support). Not sure if it would be interesting or not ?

[snailbrain]

khal .. I tested sendtoname with some small amount 0.001 nmc I think, and it added a fee of 0.01 ... is there a standard fee for sendtoname of 0.01nmc or was it something else that added the fee?

Same thing happened to me. After verification, it is the anti-dust mecanism :p
Do not send less than 0.01NMC to avoid it (another thing to update ?).

my opinion on fees : simplier = better => Force normal fees on all name_* tx (no free tx) + keep the 0.01 locked NMC on name_new.

the 0.01 for name_new is the 0.01 which is destroyed?

No coins are lost anymore since a long time.

A name_new is composed like that :
- 1 tx with the remainder of your coin (the change)
- 1 tx with an amount of 0.01NMC sent to you + a hash of (randomValue + yourName)

To create a name_firstupdate with the previous name, you must provide the random value and spend the previous 0.01 coins in this transaction (in bitcoin words : you sign the previous coins to prove you own it and then, you are able to spend it) and spend it to yourself again.

To create a name_update, you do exactly the same thing, except you can give an address you don't own on the command line to transfer the name to another person, which will be able to sign the received tx to update the name.

So, a name HAS a value of 0.01NMC at least.

When a name expire, the 0.01NMC stay there, locked.
There is currently no code able to read that name tx and spend it to a standard bitcoin tx (the network doesn't support). Not sure if it would be interesting or not ?

I understand that a name has a value of 0.01.. but if you can't do anything with it, then eventually we would just end up with a load of names and no coins?

2,100,000,000 names?

or am i misunderstanding?

[khal]

Someone's spamming the blokchain with 300-450k blocks ... what's the plan for fees?

Size added on the explorer : http://explorer.dot-bit.org/nbb=100/fromb=0
1 or 2 cents of fee for 15k per tx is cheap for a world distributed and permanent storage system.
Namecoin can meet a great success :p

391k block : http://explorer.dot-bit.org/b/24a0f711c42787d22a9228399d3bddc9096181bc32fa430198362c7fb390bd3c

1 tx hash :  http://explorer.dot-bit.org/tx/b11ae7d2cc8a4ac606e4b9aa8aec3347e8d1b0559174a5e86bd47c6097cb23af
nb input tx: 495
nb output tx: 2
size: 32k
fee:  0.045NMC

This tx has reduced number of unspent tx a lot, for exemple. Should we really penalize that ? :p

One original tx that splitted amounts : http://explorer.dot-bit.org/tx/e5d13d2a2d695b4cf6e9ed07c93aaff5abcdf5a3041c754b82519659093d47e8
input : 1
ouput : 40
fees : 0.13NMC
size: 1,5k

However, there are things to do about fees.

But I don't know how to fix an arbitrary amount that have a different value in 2 years ?
I like simple solutions and using an arbitrary amount based on current bitcoin & fiat value is not good one, but maybe the simpliest.

Any simple idea ?

I understand that a name has a value of 0.01.. but if you can't do anything with it, then eventually we would just end up with a load of names and no coins?

2,100,000,000 names?

or am i misunderstanding?

Indeed, that's a hard limit on number of names and with money that don't go to miners (to avoid free names I guess)
It is a sufficiently high number to make it evolve (being dynamic or not) long before we need more room.

[snailbrain]

i'm thinking : what if we want to use namecoin for some sort of system that requires the creation of lots of names.. not just (domains)..

i thought the cost of names would eventually become zero?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Size added on the explorer : http://explorer.dot-bit.org/nbb=100/fromb=0
1 or 2 cents of fee for 15k per tx is cheap for a world distributed and permanent storage system.
Namecoin can meet a great success :p

391k block : http://explorer.dot-bit.org/b/24a0f711c42787d22a9228399d3bddc9096181bc32fa430198362c7fb390bd3c

1 tx hash :  http://explorer.dot-bit.org/tx/b11ae7d2cc8a4ac606e4b9aa8aec3347e8d1b0559174a5e86bd47c6097cb23af
nb input tx: 495
nb output tx: 2
size: 32k
fee:  0.045NMC

This tx has reduced number of unspent tx a lot, for exemple. Should we really penalize that ? :p

One original tx that splitted amounts : http://explorer.dot-bit.org/tx/e5d13d2a2d695b4cf6e9ed07c93aaff5abcdf5a3041c754b82519659093d47e8
input : 1
ouput : 40
fees : 0.13NMC
size: 1,5k

However, there are things to do about fees.

But I don't know how to fix an arbitrary amount that have a different value in 2 years ?
I like simple solutions and using an arbitrary amount based on current bitcoin & fiat value is not good one, but maybe the simpliest.

Any simple idea ?

Good points, hadn't noticed that larger TX reducing the TXout ....No simple ideas ...I'll think some more about it.

Larger blocks may not be such an issue if we get leveldb and ultraprune blockchain handling features from latest bitcoin implemented anyway?

[khal]

Here is a simple proposal based on resourse usage :
+ x nmc per kb
+ y nmc per txout (avoid too much splitting)
- z nmc per tx in (txout size will reduce, but cpu is used to verify signatures)

Y - Z can't be below 0 or x for exemple

[domob]

What makes a coin Valuable?

Hash Rate(security)? - NMC is second to bitcoin (due to merge mining)
Total Number of Coins? - < 21 million (less than BTC.. less due to lost coins.. not a lot though)
Is it going to die? - highly unlikely, unless btc does?
Age (stability)? The Oldest Altcoin and not just a copy.. actually does something unique... and has infinite possible uses.
Usage? - lots of things, but nothing which really increases it's value (unless .bit domains take off)..  would be good if some system was used in which users have to "top up" their NMC accounts with say 1 or 10 NMC, to be able to use some features (e.g. send a message), maybe it costs 0.0001... this would go to the miners... of course if we used the NMC block chain for messaging, it would increase the blockchain size.. another problem...

Personally I do not think namecoins *should* have an "artificial" value (like in doing something to force the value up as you seem to suggest).  The point of namecoin is to have a secure and distributed name-value system (with a lot of different useful applications) - and in my opinion it is *not* to have a coin that can be used for payments or has a high intrinsic value, as the goal of bitcoin is.

To me namecoins are just what you need in order to make the system work, and also in order to prevent a bit mass-reservations of names by making a reservation (plus also the transactions that all nodes have to process on the blockchain) cost something.  As long as the costs are high enough to prevent spamming and abuse, that's fine.

[virtualmaster]

Here is a simple proposal based on resourse usage :
+ x nmc per kb
+ y nmc per txout (avoid too much splitting)
- z nmc per tx in (txout size will reduce, but cpu is used to verify signatures)

Y - Z can't be below 0 or x for exemple

It is very good the used kb fee to protect the network from spam but we need also an additional fee(we can discuss about the amount) to protect more the short domains otherwise all of them will be kept and unused years until somebody decides to buy a couple of them from domain speculators.
Anyway it is not intended to stop domain trading just to create a little bit domain justice.

[snailbrain]

What makes a coin Valuable?

Hash Rate(security)? - NMC is second to bitcoin (due to merge mining)
Total Number of Coins? - < 21 million (less than BTC.. less due to lost coins.. not a lot though)
Is it going to die? - highly unlikely, unless btc does?
Age (stability)? The Oldest Altcoin and not just a copy.. actually does something unique... and has infinite possible uses.
Usage? - lots of things, but nothing which really increases it's value (unless .bit domains take off)..  would be good if some system was used in which users have to "top up" their NMC accounts with say 1 or 10 NMC, to be able to use some features (e.g. send a message), maybe it costs 0.0001... this would go to the miners... of course if we used the NMC block chain for messaging, it would increase the blockchain size.. another problem...

Personally I do not think namecoins *should* have an "artificial" value (like in doing something to force the value up as you seem to suggest).  The point of namecoin is to have a secure and distributed name-value system (with a lot of different useful applications) - and in my opinion it is *not* to have a coin that can be used for payments or has a high intrinsic value, as the goal of bitcoin is.

To me namecoins are just what you need in order to make the system work, and also in order to prevent a bit mass-reservations of names by making a reservation (plus also the transactions that all nodes have to process on the blockchain) cost something.  As long as the costs are high enough to prevent spamming and abuse, that's fine.

Hi.. what i was suggesting was "be-careful" with the fees (you missed that bit of the quote out:))... in-case NMC value increases