Namecoin Forum

indolering wrote:I haven't received anything, neither confirmation of signing up nor any test messages.

Make sure that after clicking on the confirmation link that you receive (after signing up for the list), that you also click the confirmation button on the website (something like "Yes, Subscribe me").

snailbrain wrote:i got the test message, and replied with "received"

did you get that?

i got both (if the one from you is from "Chronokings").

Here is half a proposal to solve the "namecoin depends on external data" : Exemple : name: com/google/<random1> name: com/google/<random2> - Several google.com can be registered - You can put data in namecoin related to ICANN data, with signature, anything you want, they don't prevent registration ...

khal wrote:There is a mailing on dot-bit since the beginning :
- subscribe : http://srv01.web-sweet-web.net/cgi-bin/ ... ot-bit.org
- email : namecoin-dev@dot-bit.org

So is this what we're using? I just signed up!

You just criticized every proposal without presenting any alternative. I offered a proposal, it's there in the first post to this thread. When others presented alternatives, I asked questions, and if I criticized them, I explained my reasons for doing so. I'm not sure I understand what you are upse...

namecoiner wrote:Oh no please. Don't leave us.
What would we do without your negative comments ?

Get to enjoy yours, which are oh so full of substance.

- if 1000 blocks are over the name entry is belonging to the highest bidder and that can be contested only if somebody offers the 10X of the name owner investiture in that name without upper limit That doesn't fix the problem, that just moves it from one group to another, and it makes Namecoin unat...

I'd be also interested to hear your thoughts about the original proposal (in the first post). It sounds like an attempt at making every domain Namecoin-based, i. e., replacing ICANN completely in the DNS. I also don't think that this should be the (mid-term) goal, Namecoin should stay in .bit at le...

An interesting discussion I participated in, on an issue that I think the Namecoin devs may want to keep an eye on (and possibly address):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6969294

(link is to my comment, click 'parent' to see what i'm replying to.)

I'm personally against any kind of auction system. I think Namecoin isn't the actual solution for sites like google.bit or apple.bit, and so that it isn't really a critical point for us to ensure those domains can be owned by the TM-owning companies. TMs are based on a central register, and thus th...