Namecoin Forum

ACK from me, but I've only taken a very brief look.

It was, back up. Nothing to worry about, the server just failed to restart due to a misconfiguration after the hoster restarted the VPS.

So how about consensus for increasing the domain registration length to 1 year? and the size to 1kb? Does anyone still oppose that ? It's a compromise... I (weakly) oppose those changes, as I think we should only do completely uncontroversial changes in this "kind-of-emergency" hard fork. Political...

I do not know exactly how accounting is handled for name transactions, but if you want to fix that, just use "namecoind move JZA '' 0.03787348".

Quote from IRC earlier today, which may be of interest. <qpm> freenode:<btcdrak> qpm: plddr: the first BIP9 deployments are scheduled pretty soon https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012567.html - while the starttime is set to May 1st, code will be released before. And...

Proposed PR: https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/pull/75

Bitcoin merged BIP9 last week - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/73b7eb501e6498e911321131e58ae7fbec6bc5ed. Miners will start to set the corresponding high bit in nVersion as soon as they upgrade (no activation time), but that's not an immediate problem for us as far as I can tell. Neverthel...

I've now started to implement the actual fork logic on https://github.com/domob1812/namecore/tree/hardfork. The first commit there adds the fork discussed here, but still missing proper testing code.

it's a nice read, my opinion is that maybe the code that change the merged mining process could be added with similar rules. Just test them on testnet, add them to BIP9. Once most testnet users update we can check the effects. Yes you could deploy 0.12 but then you need another release. Instead you...

hla wrote:That makes no sense. The patch only exports name data. It's useless for a blockchain without names.

This is true, but it would be useful for UTXO's, for instance.