Any plans to enable Namecoin thin clients?

[amincd]

Please see this Reddit discussion on Namecoin thin clients:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comment ... ke/cnf9j6t

So my question is, is it possible for Namecoin developers to add an index data structure for names, with a commit of the root hash in the block header, to make thin clients possible? If engineering-hours/funding is an issue, would a Lighthouse fundraiser help?

Lighthouse is entering public beta release this month:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/l ... swlp_cXu0J

It will allow distributed assurance contracts, like Kickstarter, except without having to trust a third party intermediary to hold the funds.

[biolizard89]

Please see this Reddit discussion on Namecoin thin clients:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comment ... ke/cnf9j6t

So my question is, is it possible for Namecoin developers to add an index data structure for names, with a commit of the root hash in the block header, to make thin clients possible? If engineering-hours/funding is an issue, would a Lighthouse fundraiser help?

Lighthouse is entering public beta release this month:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/l ... swlp_cXu0J

It will allow distributed assurance contracts, like Kickstarter, except without having to trust a third party intermediary to hold the funds.

Hi,

It's possible to have name commitments, and is on our radar long-term; see https://github.com/hlandau/ncdocs/blob/ ... xo-cbnx-cb .

Right now we're using BountySource for bounties. It works pretty well for our needs, although as a cryptogeek I think a more decentralized solution would be welcome if feasible. At the moment I'm not clear on how Lighthouse would be suitable as a full replacement for BountySource; can you explain how this might be done (now or in the future)? BountySource among other things only releases funds when the relevant GitHub issue is closed... is something analogous to this possible with a decentralized design?