Secondary sources - whether it's lazy journalism, blog-jacking, or Wikipedia, engages us here in a discussion already framed through another person's or group of people's editorial eyes. Is there no better overview of Namecoin than its Wikipedia page?
This is where it started:
satoshi's comment on the matter, posted 4 days before he left the forum.
"I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.
The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.
I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.
Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners."
"@dtvan: all 3 excellent points.
1) IP records don't need to be in the chain, just do registrar function not DNS. And CA problem solved, neat.
2) Pick one TLD, .web +1.
3) Expiration and significant renewal costs, very important."
Pardon my very beginner questions, does anyone know how this technically works and can explain it in more detail (or point to a good resource)?
My understanding was new information either needed to be implemented directly into the Bitcoin block chain, or a completely new one had to be created.
How could you still share CPU resources but have two different networks?
Would this mean a 51% attack against one would have no affect on the other?
a nice application using namecoin is https://www.onename.io it uses the u/ namespace.
Are you suggesting that primary sources are free of bias and editorializing? I should introduce you to my uncle, then you can tell people how you met the world's greatest fisherman.
I suppose if it becomes expensive then the namecoin admins could lower the cost of database inserts/updates. But it seems like that would prompt the price per namecoin to rise accordingly, because the value of namecoin is a single database insert or update.
That said, I actually think the BitShares Domains model is a better fit for name registration: treat each domain like real estate, putting it up to the highest bidder (which makes squatting expensive). However, BTS Domains is probably a year away at least.
In either case, the most significant bit is browser/OS adoption. At the moment, not a single browser (even Firefox) supports .bit domains, except through plugins.
Is this like rent? It may make squatting expensive but it would also make non-commercial websites impractical.
I hope it fails.
However, at the moment it's purely in the planning stages.
Well, I'm sure stoked that we're building the future infrastructure of the Net on something that we're pretty sure doesn't have a ginormous security hole anymore...
* Profitable (what? profitable cryptocurrency? what?)
* Powerful disincentives for squatting
* Lots of funding for the project, which means we can actually push towards critical-mass adoption
More will be available at domains.bitshares.org within ~2 weeks.
If makes sense if you think about it. The current BTC blockchain is gigabytes of data. Add text information to every transaction and you are adding even more bloat.
In all seriousness, I did some Googling and the closest I can find is this:
"One final reason is that Satoshi was opposed to putting non-Bitcoin related data into the main chain. As creator of the system, his opinion should carry a lot of weight with anyone serious about extending it."
I realize that is close to being useless, but I can't find the direct post in question by Satoshi that it is referencing. I seem to recall it not being Satoshi, however, but one of the current devs that I read a similar sentiment from.
But again, I don't have any direct links. I apologize.
Technically, why not piggy-back namecoin on bitcoin. As far as I know there's some kind of 'comment' field in the transaction where you can put arbitrary data.
As I have always said, bitcoin (the invention) means the end of FB, Twitter, and all similar centralized corporate entities.
So, finally, a cryptocurrency which serves a purpose aside from filling up HN's article listing. Cool.
Here are just a few ideas: http://www.convalesco.org/#31