No, it's perfectly clear: you are twisting your use cases so any direct comparison to anything is utterly meaningless. Do you really expect people to install Namecoin and administer a server on top of that? You expect that to scale?sugarpuff wrote:That piece of documentation describes one possible setup. Plastered throughout that same PDF in other locations, and all over the GitHub README, it is emphasized:sugarpuff wrote:sugarpuff wrote: 1. It's not a 3rd party. It's you, your own party. That is what... 1st party?Clients trusting servers ... that is a one party trusting a third party.OkTurtles white paper wrote:DNSNMC provides the missing “glue” to the Namecoin blockchain that makes it immediately accessible to clients of all types with zero configuration. A network administrator need only enter the IP address of a DNSNMC-compliant DNS server to instantly make the information within the blockchain accessible to all of the users that she (or he) provides internet access to.
If the client owns the server, that is by definition a first party.GitHub README wrote:DNSChain is meant to be run by individuals!
If their friend owns the server, well, that's either 2nd or 3rd party, and I hope they have a good friend.
This is a completely different reality than the one we currently live in. Go register your own CA and get browsers to accept it if you don't believe me. To argue that DNSChain and CAs are "the same thing" is to display complete ignorance about these realities.
Edit: that previous paragraph isn't clear. Please see next post for clarification.
And no, I don't need an introduction to the problems with certificate authorities.
The estimate I gave previously was based on the ratio of compression seen in the actual Bitcoin blockchain. I quoted some highlights from very detailed discussions, it was not meant to be a comprehensive overview of how it works, just enough to get you started.sugarpuff wrote: That is how much data is needed for a wallet to "verify its own balance". That is not the same as verifying an arbitrary namecoin entry, which is what is needed.
Uhh, no, it's the future of the client-side blockchain storage. UXTO tracks the unspent outputs instead of the entire blockchain and it can verify future transactions as well.sugarpuff wrote: Case closed on the UXTO thing?
SCIP takes this one step further: clients will be able to verify the integrity of what a third party server tells them without needing to track the unspent outputs. I don't understand how that technology works at all, but do understand the ramifications of it: trust-free clients.
Or because you are an egotistical jerk.sugarpuff wrote:It's because to me, you sound like a bad politician, and that's all.indolering wrote:In our last conversation on IRC, you told me that I sounded like a bad politician. That's because whenever someone gives you feedback on your project you take it as a personal attack.
Then you haven't been paying attention, I was actually quoting another developer's description of your reactions to feedback.sugarpuff wrote:I haven't gotten that vibe from anyone else who has critiqued my work so far.
Ahh, well, fuck you too.sugarpuff wrote: Your self-criticism, that you write/say too much, is a near acknowledgement of this. Too many words, without enough quality content to justify them.
At any rate, it's Phelix's money, he can do what he wants with it. However, I certainly don't feel it would be childish of me to not give you a cut now.