snailbrain wrote:
I don't see any specific reason for using NAME_NEW-style 20-byte messages. We can use either normal names, or a new type of non-standard transactions. I'm actually leaning towards the latter approach. The only drawback is that the users of older client won't notice the transaction, while with name they'll see that something was transferred to them and will be able to upgrade the client.
There is only one : name_new will certainly be cheap (less expensive that name_(first)update) because it do not use a unique name (the scarce resources of namecoin), even with the future name fee system.
When we'll implement the message system (with a name_new + a message in that case, to have some persistence/way to ask for the message when you receive a name_new to your address), it will allow all sort of things that would require to be done offchain now, without the need to modify the protocol, only the client softwares.
And, if some usages soft-coded in the client meet success, we can later update the protocol to add new OP_CODE / styles of transactions to do it in the blockchain.
ps : I've no preference for name_new or another one
