Namecoin Forum

virtual_master wrote: OK. You convinced me.
Unfortunately there was no other quick method to convince others since nobody is knowing your pseudonymous identity from the actual active Namecoin Forum.
Of course I am not representing the Namecoin project but we have nobody who represents it. (it is the same like it is by any other cryptocurrency)
Sure you could be the oldest namecoiner in the world or even who developed it. But given only this, until now unknown pseudonymous identity I was able to analyze the facts only based on this.
I must also say you know the source code much better then me and probably than most of us.
So thanks for your demonstration and it would be very kind from you if you could help us to fix it quickly.

I didn't gave an email because I have bad experience with posting emails but I will post my BM address.
Thanks.

I like the plan snailbrain have outlined, as much as I respect the BM project, I still find email awfully handy!

If you worry about my identity - I am Michael Gronager, Chief Operation Officer at Payward Inc - the kraken.com exchange - I was integrating NMC as part of our asset portfolio, when I discovered the bug. I really tried to get hold of people, which is hard when you are not really part of the project and when you also prefer alt-communication - further your main dev have apparently gone under ground - choosing not to react on private mails in the forum though having read them..

So getting concrete - we need to, as snailbrain mentions,
* first make ConnectInputs to accept, but ignore commands as I issued today
* make a rescan of the name index back to the critical block and remove any name_updates done this way

This is in principle enough if people want to waste their namecoins take over d/wav let them, as log as it has no impact
* and finally - later, in another release, depending on the speed of performing the upgrade, disallow this for of transfer.

I can easily fix all this in libcoin (and I will do anyway) - the challenge is to maintain this old legacy code from 0.3 times, need to check how you use the index for names etc...

What codebase is the one you consider the most up to date ?

You can google my email - then we can take some of this off line

khal wrote:

snailbrain wrote:

ninjarobot wrote:

snailbrain wrote:NMC: N5Nw4uk8NNd3UcoJ9jPD5Towdxr9wyGuN6
BTC: 19wDA8D9fnYdp71DhQygWYktHnmW4ygTN9

This will go to the dev

Thanks Snailbrain. Sent 200 NMC. Kudos to the coder for working on a fix!

thanks on his behalf..

i have changed addresses
NMC: MyWQAeXSpLLH6GUCtyT6xAVx979YXfWgLK
BTC: 15YPPrb4YNLPyjwJ38cfRJyPFKPK1ag37b

but received it fine

hi snailbrain, i also sent some NMC to the above address.

(bucktotal from btctalk)

libcoin wrote:

virtual_master wrote: OK. You convinced me.
Unfortunately there was no other quick method to convince others since nobody is knowing your pseudonymous identity from the actual active Namecoin Forum.
Of course I am not representing the Namecoin project but we have nobody who represents it. (it is the same like it is by any other cryptocurrency)
Sure you could be the oldest namecoiner in the world or even who developed it. But given only this, until now unknown pseudonymous identity I was able to analyze the facts only based on this.
I must also say you know the source code much better then me and probably than most of us.
So thanks for your demonstration and it would be very kind from you if you could help us to fix it quickly.

I didn't gave an email because I have bad experience with posting emails but I will post my BM address.
Thanks.

I like the plan snailbrain have outlined, as much as I respect the BM project, I still find email awfully handy!

If you worry about my identity - I am Michael Gronager, Chief Operation Officer at Payward Inc - the kraken.com exchange - I was integrating NMC as part of our asset portfolio, when I discovered the bug. I really tried to get hold of people, which is hard when you are not really part of the project and when you also prefer alt-communication - further your main dev have apparently gone under ground - choosing not to react on private mails in the forum though having read them..

So getting concrete - we need to, as snailbrain mentions,
* first make ConnectInputs to accept, but ignore commands as I issued today
* make a rescan of the name index back to the critical block and remove any name_updates done this way

This is in principle enough if people want to waste their namecoins take over d/wav let them, as log as it has no impact
* and finally - later, in another release, depending on the speed of performing the upgrade, disallow this for of transfer.

I can easily fix all this in libcoin (and I will do anyway) - the challenge is to maintain this old legacy code from 0.3 times, need to check how you use the index for names etc...

What codebase is the one you consider the most up to date ?

You can google my email - then we can take some of this off line

thanks for bringing to everyone's attention..

I will create a thread later and we will issue an update to the namecoin-qt repo.. and maybe khal or some others can verify.. (can do pull request to official namecoin repo if khal can accept it [instead of fork])

The fix is being tested at the moment..

"Thanks bucktotal"

notify me when the patch is done. i will test it on my servers.

What codebase is the one you consider the most up to date ?

Good question ...

https://github.com/namecoin-qt/namecoin ... 0b553019f4

but have just received message of some other bugs which are being looked at.. so hold on for announcements for now..

please if people can - double check

snailbrain wrote:https://github.com/namecoin-qt/namecoin ... 0b553019f4

but have just received message of some other bugs which are being looked at.. so hold on for announcements for now..

please if people can - double check

Looks good from a quick glance, but that probably doesn't mean anything since I've just started reading the Namecoin source code with today. (But I know C++ in general at least.)

Funny, just decided to revisit namecoin (bitmessage triggered this) and now this?!? Lol.

Well, it seems fixable if true.

Thanks libcoin for finding the bug (and disclosing it responsibly), and thanks snailbrain and thecoder for working on a fix. Peer review makes everything better; better to have this found now than to have it show up in a couple years when names are worth more.