Namecoin Forum

this topic probably should have gone in "Technical Support" ... I think you can use a few different RPC calls namecoind help specifically namecoind help name_filter and namecoind help name_scan and pipe the output to a file ... or wherever you want to do with it ... can't be any more specific than y...

domob: biolizard: are you aware of the upcoming "payment protocol" that is being implemented for the bitcoin 0.9 satoshi client? Yes, I heard about it. And as you point out, namecoin seems like a perfect solution (as for many other problems :D). Verifying the X.509 certificate as is done already wi...

domob: biolizard: are you aware of the upcoming "payment protocol" that is being implemented for the bitcoin 0.9 satoshi client? http://www.pcworld.com/article/2046182/bitcoin-upgrade-aims-for-smoother-ecommerce.html It has crossed my mind earlier that the SSL comms they are going to be using will b...

Yes, looks like that was it... I removed daemon=1 and now it works, thanks. Strange that this configuration worked fine for Namecoin-Qt on Windows 7. Clearly it is not "working fine" on Windows since it is ignoring the conf file call to daemonise ... which on linux it attempts to and then crashes w...

Sounds like you might have erroneously set in your namecoin.conf? Comment it out if so ... but "server=1" is needed for debug window rpc calls....

I've done an autotools toolchain build and .deb packages for namecoin in the past but nobody was interested so I shelved it .... unitl the directory structure (now with new namecoin-qt Make system also) gets straightened out properly (e.g. get rid of all the extraneous windows build crap) it doesn't...

signee updates Unfortunately the client sends names to a new address on name_update. As the signature is currently bound to the address that held the signee name at the height of creating the signature entry the verification will break after a name_update on the signees. This can be solved by using...

I concur ... all good points.

Wouldn't it only need the last 36,000 blocks since all name operations before then have expired/updated since then anyway?

Unless there is reason for knowing the prior name operations and not just the 'current' set of names?

domob: Sounds good, but maybe we could also use the more generic "hash/" I suggested. I think I read already that the "Holy Grail" guys discussed about putting hashes into the blockchain (supposedly for a similar feature but not to verify files but some OT datastructures or so), and then it may make...