Search found 914 matches

by domob
Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:50 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: [Brainstorming] Namecoin SPV
Replies: 33
Views: 11414

Re: [Brainstorming] Namecoin SPV

If you are interested to look into UNO commitments, there's also https://github.com/domob1812/namecore/tree/uno-trie which I started to work on two years ago. It might be useful to base further work on, but maybe it is also easier to just start from a clean slate. Honestly I'm a bit skeptical that ...
by domob
Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:43 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: [Brainstorming] Namecoin SPV
Replies: 33
Views: 11414

Re: [Brainstorming] Namecoin SPV

If you are interested to look into UNO commitments, there's also https://github.com/domob1812/namecore/tree/uno-trie which I started to work on two years ago. It might be useful to base further work on, but maybe it is also easier to just start from a clean slate.
by domob
Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:38 pm
Forum: Technical Support
Topic: Recovery wallet.dat after delete from hdd (python script)
Replies: 11
Views: 6350

Re: Recovery wallet.dat after delete from hdd (python script

The difference might be between compressed and uncompressed keys - the old client only has uncompressed keys, while the new client uses compressed ones.
by domob
Fri Apr 07, 2017 6:12 pm
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: sendrawtransaction gives -26 error in Namecoin 0.13.99
Replies: 7
Views: 629

Re: sendrawtransaction gives -26 error in Namecoin 0.13.99

Yes, that's roughly speaking the intent I had when I implemented it like this: The raw tx API should really be a very low level layer, and by not prefilling the name input, you gain additional flexibility. Adding the name input is not hard, just use name_show to look up the txid and vin.
by domob
Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:14 pm
Forum: Technical Support
Topic: Is my JSON data in Namecoin ID correct?
Replies: 2
Views: 283

Re: Is my JSON data in Namecoin ID correct?

Looks good on NameID: https://nameid.org/?name=cannon

AFAIK, that's the only real application making use of it (apart from some experimental stuff I implemented for Pidgin/OTR a couple of years ago).
by domob
Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:42 pm
Forum: Official Namecoin softwares
Topic: What version should I use?
Replies: 4
Views: 1184

Re: What version should I use?

Let me just add: With/without UI here means "UI for managing names". The wallet UI from Bitcoin Core is included also in the "stock" Namecoin Core build - but I think it is good to get more testers for Brandon's code, so that we can eventually merge it back if everything is fine.
by domob
Mon Aug 29, 2016 9:14 am
Forum: Official Namecoin softwares
Topic: Releasing Namecoin Core 0.13
Replies: 0
Views: 840

Releasing Namecoin Core 0.13

I think that we should head towards making an official release relatively soon, given that we haven't in quite some time. Bitcoin Core 0.13 is out, and I've just tagged a 0.13 Namecoin Core release candidate based on that release: https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/releases/tag/nc0.13.0rc1 It...
by domob
Sat Aug 20, 2016 7:02 pm
Forum: Mining
Topic: Update for BIP65 softfork
Replies: 9
Views: 1523

Re: Update for BIP65 softfork

@domob, is it feasible to temporarily revert 71cc9d9fe829efd9c9b012c4cd1ece1d988b4869 for Namecoin Core master, 0.13, and 0.12 branches, and re-enable that commit once AAA has been deployed? I realize that doing this will expose Namecoin Core users to increased risk of malleability attacks by non-m...
by domob
Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:45 pm
Forum: Bounties
Topic: [NMDF] Namecoin Bounty Cornucopia
Replies: 64
Views: 33379

Re: [NMDF] Namecoin Bounty Cornucopia

1.0 BTC - P2P node SPV client Bountysource Forum thread NMControl needs to be able to connect. Maintenance of the base code should be discussed up front. Claiming the bounty. Instructions for using the client are at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XdC200wFhHqPfrQ_3DJ7VSUrkhLvJuSG6zG7LSWP6ec/edi...
by domob
Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:47 pm
Forum: Mining
Topic: Update for BIP65 softfork
Replies: 9
Views: 1523

Re: Update for BIP65 softfork

This makes sense. We can certainly disable the S-malleability fix, but I'm not sure if that's really what we should do. The Qt pull request has been pending for a really long time now, and from what I understand, it mostly works. Is there anything strongly blocking just merging that and getting ever...