OneName (again)

[domob]

I just read this (sorry, in German): http://www.golem.de/news/open-name-syst ... 08102.html It is about this project: http://opennamesystem.org/

Does anyone have more information on it? The site is very sparingly with actual details ... do they use d/ for domains, or have their own namespace and use Namecoin just as backend? It seems that these are the same guys that run OneName, and they still stick to their u/ for identities, also in this project.

[biolizard89]

I just read this (sorry, in German): http://www.golem.de/news/open-name-syst ... 08102.html It is about this project: http://opennamesystem.org/

Does anyone have more information on it? The site is very sparingly with actual details ... do they use d/ for domains, or have their own namespace and use Namecoin just as backend? It seems that these are the same guys that run OneName, and they still stick to their u/ for identities, also in this project.

For people who can't read German:

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 08102.html
https://github.com/opennamesystem/opens ... AMECOIN.md

"As of yet, no work has been done on adding support for blockchain domains to ONS and the ONS command line tools. There have been a few interesting efforts within this vein, most notably the standards drafted up for namecoin's d/ namespace. At some point it will be interesting to include support for blockchain domains, but we feel it is best for now to focus on providing specifications and tools for extending ICANN DNS to support users and user handles registered in an open way on the blockchain."

Maybe they're not actually storing domain records in the blockchain?

[domob]

Oh, I must have missed that. But I guess they are still using their own u/ for the names / identities they talk about. It's a little bit frustrating that they broke contact after some attempts to discuss moving to id/. Maybe someone else can try to convince them....

[indolering]

I've drafted email that I will send out as soon as Ademan switches the developer mailing list over to Google Groups.

It looks like they have funding and are seriously committed. They certainly have the UX and marketing on lock, I am 100% behind bringing them into the fold.

[indolering]

It's a little bit frustrating that they broke contact after some attempts to discuss moving to id/. Maybe someone else can try to convince them....

Were you in email contact with them or what? Breaking into Namecoin development was hard. I engaged a lot with Jeremy and others mainly because I lacked confidence in my programming abilities and I wanted to make sure I wasn't screwing things up.

ONS currently uses namecoin as a key-value store but the system is blockchain-agnostic.

This echoes sentiments of many frustrated application developers, everyone is ready to ditch Namecoin at a moments notice because the project appears half-dead and it's a major PITA to develop for.

There are 2-3 Namecoin proxies, a not-very-useful NamecoinToBind replacement, three identity websites, and as many partially-implemented client libraries as there are client applications.

Something is broken here and it is why I'm focused on overhauling our developer UX (packaging NMControl and Namecoin/Libcoin, documentation, client libraries) and communication channels.

[virtual_master]

I just read this (sorry, in German): http://www.golem.de/news/open-name-syst ... 08102.html It is about this project: http://opennamesystem.org/

Does anyone have more information on it? The site is very sparingly with actual details ... do they use d/ for domains, or have their own namespace and use Namecoin just as backend? It seems that these are the same guys that run OneName, and they still stick to their u/ for identities, also in this project.

Good observation.
I think it is easier to take another namespace for a group with a strong financial background or development potential as they can make their own decisions.
We could implement a namespace registration feature at least for longer namespaces to support this process. In a registered namespace only the owner could register name entries. That could create stronger binding for the owner to his namespace and increase security and overview(for example for emission of bonds as namespace entries).