# of names

Post Reply
foglight
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:46 pm

# of names

Post by foglight »

phelix, this is your graph right?

is this correct? what is going on lately? :shock:

Image

phelix
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: # of names

Post by phelix »

I noticed it, too. Looks like a squatter running crazy... sigh.
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

domob
Posts: 1129
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: # of names

Post by domob »

phelix wrote:I noticed it, too. Looks like a squatter running crazy... sigh.
Is it d/ names or may it be some other namespace?
BTC: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/

cassini
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: # of names

Post by cassini »

domob wrote:Is it d/ names or may it be some other namespace?
Namespace distribution as of blockheight=228301 (data obtained from name_scan, i.e. contains both newly created and updated names):

Code: Select all

   Last 36000 blocks:    	         Last 12000 blocks:

    509122  d                         407789  d
     41707  ***EXPIRED***             136116  (older than 12000 blocks)
     26417  u                          41707  ***EXPIRED***
      7346  i                           6633  u
      5065  id                          2873  i
      1247  ***EMPTY NAMESPACE***        739  id
       923  m                            552  n
       684  a                            552  m
       662  o                            552  e
       661  k                            551  j
       661  f                            551  f
       661  c                            551  b
       661  b                            551  a
       660  n                            550  h
       660  l                            550  g
       660  j                            549  k
       660  h                            208  l
       660  g                            101  p
       660  e                             98  ***EMPTY NAMESPACE***
       550  coin                          89  c
       246  p                             50  tor
       148  ip                            42  bit.co.in
        98  bit.co.in                     36  x
        91  tor                           19  poa
        70  app                           10  dd
        54  i2p                            4  s
        50  s
        40  x
        40  r
        39  z
        39  y
        39  w
        39  v
        39  t
        39  8
        38  q
        38  7
        38  5
        38  4
        38  3
        38  2
        38  1
        37  9
        37  6
        36  0
        32  ip6
        25  exchange
        24  poa
        24  dd
        15  com
        10  monegraph
         6  mdw
         5  wot
         5  email
         5  is
         5  ds
(malformed namespaces and namespaces with less than 4 entries not shown)

phelix
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: # of names

Post by phelix »

All from BM-2cWYJASnBTBFzuM7bKAGESJ5No11Jpu6So ?
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

drllau
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Sydney Singapore Shanghai
Contact:

Re: # of names

Post by drllau »

Don't know whether it is a squatter or not but to give you some historical perspective, when the US congress wanted to develop cross-continential railroads, they allocated development zones (think real estate) in alternate blocks on either side of the line (think chequerboard). This discouraged monopolising any single geological confluence as the open space was always a public "commons" that could be released in the future. If you look at a lot of economic systems including real-estate, some of their public objectives was to encourage development use and not just hoarding (eg trust rule against perpetuality, patent increasing fees to force unviable patents into public domain, etc). So there may be a public policy objective in having a "decay" function where unused domains get charged a minor administrative "tax" for being inactive for a increasing periods (ie recognised by others).

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: # of names

Post by biolizard89 »

drllau wrote:Don't know whether it is a squatter or not but to give you some historical perspective, when the US congress wanted to develop cross-continential railroads, they allocated development zones (think real estate) in alternate blocks on either side of the line (think chequerboard). This discouraged monopolising any single geological confluence as the open space was always a public "commons" that could be released in the future. If you look at a lot of economic systems including real-estate, some of their public objectives was to encourage development use and not just hoarding (eg trust rule against perpetuality, patent increasing fees to force unviable patents into public domain, etc). So there may be a public policy objective in having a "decay" function where unused domains get charged a minor administrative "tax" for being inactive for a increasing periods (ie recognised by others).
Well, an unused domain looks just like an actively used domain according to blockchain validation rules. That said, increasing renewal fees a lot (at least 1 USD per year) would have a superficially similar effect, in the sense that it would become prohibitively expensive to own huge numbers of domains that aren't generating any revenue or serving the owner any purpose. This would also make certain attacks involving evil miners much more expensive to pull off.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

drllau
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Sydney Singapore Shanghai
Contact:

Re: # of names

Post by drllau »

biolizard89 wrote: Well, an unused domain looks just like an actively used domain according to blockchain validation rules. That said, increasing renewal fees a lot (at least 1 USD per year) would have a superficially similar effect, in the sense that it would become prohibitively expensive to own huge numbers of domains that aren't generating any revenue or serving the owner any purpose. This would also make certain attacks involving evil miners much more expensive to pull off.
Unfortunately this is one of those mutually agreed policies ... like the TCP/IP backoff function, it needs to be universally implemented otherwise the squatters to gravitate to the rogue authority. You also want some diversity, different period, thresholds or backoff functions to encourage innovative use of the namecoin domain. The problem with assuming everyone is an independent is making a mistake that they also act like an adult always.

It is also partly social peer pressure. When email was contained within campus, you have the older cohort of students give the cluebat to newbies on proper netiquette ... once it escaped the confines of a collegial mutual respect, commercial spammers abused the mailhost, effectively externalising their costs onto the common infrastructure and backbone traffic charges. And if you read some of the early history, the network operators were complicit in encouraging "usage" which they could bill. Whilst it is too much to expect human nature to change in a short decade or two, at least the mistakes of the past need not be repeated in anticipating or mitigating negative side effects.

Post Reply