Namecoins are destroyed... is this how it works?

[jdbtracker]

So I'm new to the community, came over from Bitcoin, I thought of Namecoin like Bitcoin then it struck me.

Why the hell are all the network transaction coins destroyed!! You'll end up with no coins... but here is my question.

Do the destroyed coins go towards the coin cap or does it simply subtract from the coins in circulation, later to be created again, cause if so... I
get it now!

If the Coin cap is absolute, then eventually no one will be able to register anything. But if everytime 50 coins get destroyed means someone else
can list a name on the blockchain = Namecoin has a value independent of it's coin base.

only 120 people can register a namespace per day and those people probably have enough left over NMC to register their namespace for the next two years with the halving of the fee. They simply have to buy an additional 50 NMC and they are set, keeping a lower bound for the value of the coin equaling the value of creating a brand new namespace.

The real economy of Namecoin would come from namespace registrations, completely separate from the NMC coinbase; As demand for new namespaces surges putting pressure on the 120 people per day that gain namespace registration rights from merged mining.

so current coin base. 7,402,150 / 50 NMC = 148,043 domains capable of being created right now, with countless domains already created, if it is denominated properly of course, because that number is our current block height.

at a value of .008 BTC per NMC = 148,043 =1184.344 BTC x 50 nmc = our current market cap.

so the more pressure we have to create, distribute, hoard, sell namespaces the higher the price will go, it will depend on a good balance of new users and people wanting to create namespaces.

If this is true, then we need a way of tracking real number of possible namespaces that can be created at any given point, this would tell us if we are approaching the dreaded only 120 registrations/day limit... this would be catastrphic!! our distribution and growth of the project would be crippled! maybe even abandoned!

[pitbull]

Coins are destroyed, but the fee for a new domain is now .01 nmc

[gigabytecoin]

I'm fairly certain that namecoins spent towards registering a name are lost forever.

With the idea being that the price for registering a domain name will continue to drop over time.

Once we hit 0.000001 NMC/registration you're talking like 20B+ possible registrations.

[biolizard89]

One of the ideas discussed for improved fee structure is to have the coins used to register a name be released after the name expires. If this is implemented, no additional coins would be lost. I think this idea is relatively popular (I definitely support it).

[gigabytecoin]

One of the ideas discussed for improved fee structure is to have the coins used to register a name be released after the name expires. If this is implemented, no additional coins would be lost. I think this idea is relatively popular (I definitely support it).

I too would support this kind of functionality of the network.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just make network fees synonymous with transaction fees and pay them back out to the miners immediately?

[domob]

One of the ideas discussed for improved fee structure is to have the coins used to register a name be released after the name expires. If this is implemented, no additional coins would be lost. I think this idea is relatively popular (I definitely support it).

I too would support this kind of functionality of the network.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just make network fees synonymous with transaction fees and pay them back out to the miners immediately?

The problem with this approach would be that miners themselves can register names for free. To prevent this, the current approach of "destroyed" coins has been adopted, and I think we should keep it. However, I'm also for just "locking" the coins, and allowing them to be reused (after expirey of the name / cancelling the name ownership).

[biolizard89]

One of the ideas discussed for improved fee structure is to have the coins used to register a name be released after the name expires. If this is implemented, no additional coins would be lost. I think this idea is relatively popular (I definitely support it).

I too would support this kind of functionality of the network.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just make network fees synonymous with transaction fees and pay them back out to the miners immediately?

The problem with this approach would be that miners themselves can register names for free. To prevent this, the current approach of "destroyed" coins has been adopted, and I think we should keep it. However, I'm also for just "locking" the coins, and allowing them to be reused (after expirey of the name / cancelling the name ownership).

Yes, domob is correct -- allowing the name fees to go to miners would allow miners to register names for free (or sell them at discounted prices). Locking coins prevents this attack, while preventing the coin supply from being depleted over time.

[jdbtracker]

One of the ideas discussed for improved fee structure is to have the coins used to register a name be released after the name expires. If this is implemented, no additional coins would be lost. I think this idea is relatively popular (I definitely support it).

This is a really good idea; I'm thinking along the same lines, but with a twist a peercoin twist. We can add a proof of stake system to namecoin to move away from centralization of namecoins by the miners. If we add a proof of stake to the name registry so if it takes .05 namecoins to register a namespace then during that registration period those coins generate nmc for everyone, at the end both the generated coins and the registration coins are returned to the system according to how many coin you have... to limit people hoarding namespaces or spamming, but allow them to hoard coins to sell to people who need to make a namespace. so eventually we will need to discuss the proper coin handling for good circulation of namespaces.

The idea of destroying the coins was weird to me, but then I saw it could work with just a few adjustments. Destroy coins return to circulation, allow more people to continue registering and with a POS system we can improve coin circulation... of course we could only give them out to confirmed working addresses, that opens a whole new can of worms.

[jonyspain]

One of the ideas discussed for improved fee structure is to have the coins used to register a name be released after the name expires. If this is implemented, no additional coins would be lost. I think this idea is relatively popular (I definitely support it).

coins are not destroyed anymore, that happened at the beginning,
when there was an extra fee to register domains,
now it costs 0.01 to pre-register and 0.01 to send the transaction
and every year 0.01 to send the transaction to update the domain.
This transaction fee can be lower.
And the pre-register cost, i think it's just locked until the domain expires.

[biolizard89]

One of the ideas discussed for improved fee structure is to have the coins used to register a name be released after the name expires. If this is implemented, no additional coins would be lost. I think this idea is relatively popular (I definitely support it).

coins are not destroyed anymore, that happened at the beginning,
when there was an extra fee to register domains,
now it costs 0.01 to pre-register and 0.01 to send the transaction
and every year 0.01 to send the transaction to update the domain.
This transaction fee can be lower.
And the pre-register cost, i think it's just locked until the domain expires.

I'm pretty sure the 0.01 NMC name fee is not refunded when the domain expires right now; that's why there was discussion of changing that.