Namecoin 15/10/13 Hard Fork - update before 8th Dec

[aristoteles]

Hello,

I was about to make a purchase for a domain. Bit
is advisable to wait?? I'd hate to be decided
back the last transactions and lose control.

On the other hand, would have to wait for registrars as
dotbit.me also make an update in your code?

Thank you., And excuse my bad English, I'm learning just

[phelix]

Hello,

I was about to make a purchase for a domain. Bit
is advisable to wait?? I'd hate to be decided
back the last transactions and lose control.

On the other hand, would have to wait for registrars as
dotbit.me also make an update in your code?

Thank you., And excuse my bad English, I'm learning just

Hi! In theory it should work fine if the seller is honest (and has not bought the domain from someone else who messed with it).

Same goes for registrars..

[phelix]

Hmm somehow the latest version would not accept new blocks... so I was stuck at 140576 / 133335 (with an older copy of the blockchain).

Started over with a new directory and am getting new blocks now.... 20k and counting.

[snailbrain]

try to delete nameindex.dat (although a bit late now)

[khal]

Khal,

i have sent you 173 messages, but not one reply (maybe slight over exaggeration )

did you review the new patch, and will you update block explorer and repos (when you think it's ok)

are you back now or still busy?

I've done a quick review of the patch, tested it and adapted it to the "master" branch.
I'll do more tests and also integrate the latest commit too.

Due my limited time/skills in C++ and the length of the patch, I've not done a deep review of it.

So, yes, I'm back, but not available for heavy c++ coding (the rebasing thread is more important than ever if we can't attract more c++ coders).
I'm following this bug closely and will update repositories when we are ready.

Sorry for not replying to your multiple requests :p

[cassini]

if we can't attract more c++ coders

If we could convince the bitcointalk admins (theymos?) to integrate nameID/OpenID ...
This would certainly attract the attention of the bitcoin core coders

[snailbrain]

Khal,

i have sent you 173 messages, but not one reply (maybe slight over exaggeration )

did you review the new patch, and will you update block explorer and repos (when you think it's ok)

are you back now or still busy?

I've done a quick review of the patch, tested it and adapted it to the "master" branch.
I'll do more tests and also integrate the latest commit too.

Due my limited time/skills in C++ and the length of the patch, I've not done a deep review of it.

So, yes, I'm back, but not available for heavy c++ coding (the rebasing thread is more important than ever if we can't attract more c++ coders).
I'm following this bug closely and will update repositories when we are ready.

Sorry for not replying to your multiple requests :p

Brill Khal <3

@cassini .. it seems there is a lot of beef with namecoin with some of the older bitcoin guys, they don't want to assist in namecoin at all.. i think it's because namecoin became a currency/altcoin .. not sure tbh

[phelix]

Khal,

i have sent you 173 messages, but not one reply (maybe slight over exaggeration )

did you review the new patch, and will you update block explorer and repos (when you think it's ok)

are you back now or still busy?

I've done a quick review of the patch, tested it and adapted it to the "master" branch.
I'll do more tests and also integrate the latest commit too.

Due my limited time/skills in C++ and the length of the patch, I've not done a deep review of it.

So, yes, I'm back, but not available for heavy c++ coding (the rebasing thread is more important than ever if we can't attract more c++ coders).
I'm following this bug closely and will update repositories when we are ready.

Sorry for not replying to your multiple requests :p

Great!

[phelix]

try to delete nameindex.dat (although a bit late now)

That was the first thing I tried but it did not help.

Starting from scratch everything went fine. Also a retry with a backup from before the first fix just worked fine.

I guess the problem was that the second version fix did not like the first version fix had tampered with the data.

[phelix]

Here is a Windows build of the current patched version (from http://github.com/namecoin-qt/namecoin-qt) to play with.

This is a test version as there is still a discussion going about some improvements.

Make a backup of your user/..../namecoin directory first because you might have to go back should there be further changes in the release version.

http://blockchained.com/stuff/namecoin-Q.3.72test.zip

Code: Select all

$ shasum -a 256 namecoin-Q.3.72test.zip
462bb3f71780a22da11c69589410a98227c429821391a9389aea45ef046be58c  namecoin-Q.3.72test.zip

This is what the patched version will do (quote from libcoin):
* name database is rebuild enforcing strict owner ship of names - so if
you install the new release you can trust (100%) the key-value pairs!
* fake transactions (i.e. violating the tx.in.name=tx.out.name rule) are
allowed but does not alter the state of the name database
* after block 150k fake transactions are disallowed