Namecoin Forum

Anybody notice that BitcoinEXpress first announced his attack on Namecoin, then withdrew only to then make threats to attack solidcoin then only to go and attack DoubleC's exchanges. Seriously this guy can't seem to make up his mind what he wants to do first, second, and last. I have to agree with ...

I would suggest setting a lock in point and quit wasting time on it. ArtForz has provided a genius idea on rolling past lock in points however. Hashing power is your only real solution at the moment. Good luck. If you destroy things it means people have a right to destroy what you have as well, sho...

Recently BitcoinExpress has requested an exchange from DoubleC for a new block chain called Geist Geld but at the same time his announcement of attacking the NMC block chain has forced DoubleC to basically shutdown his namecoin exchange from transferring or depositing namecoins. The irony of this i...

All I can say is I have 4 GH/s I can use to help if need be. But if they (he) does succeed they will have destroyed the project altogether even if they only rewrote 9000 blocks. I will have lost all the namecoins I've been mining and purchased. I will also have lost the domains I have registered thr...

Recently BitcoinExpress has requested an exchange from DoubleC for a new block chain called Geist Geld but at the same time his announcement of attacking the NMC block chain has forced DoubleC to basically shutdown his namecoin exchange from transferring or depositing namecoins. The irony of this is...

I agree with Davinci on this and disagree with BitcoinExpress on this. Dude if you want to test something do it on a test chain that DOESN'T involve people's investments. Maybe merged mining should be implemented ASAP? That would crush this guy's idea in a minute. Why is it taking so damn long anywa...

Yes, wait for the code to be ready. Then pick a block ~ 3 weeks away. Should give enough people a chance to get back from holiday & upgrade. At current rate, that's gonna be about 19500! Yea I too agree we should make sure that the code is ready and then add the block # in. 19500 still seems reason...

nodemaster wrote:Count me in. I'm already on Testnet with RC3 From my point of view we can set merged mining block number to the next block.

Do you think we have done enough testing to ensure no exploits exist?

What errors or anomalies have you seen if any?

So luke-jr who runs the Eligius bitcoin pool claims that there is a security exploit in the merged mining code: 17:02 < luke-jr> bliket_: will you still like me if I exploit the security hole in merged mining? <.< ... 17:06 < doublec> luke-jr: have you notified vinced of what you think the security...

I've got a considerable (~100Ghash) pool of servers that I'm currently doing bitcoin mining with. I've been playing with namecoin, and I think it's an awesome idea, but there are a few things holding me back from contributing some horsepower behind mining for it right now. 1) The current difficulty...