I think I heard that claim somewhere, no idea whether OneName actually said that. In any event it's a ridiculous argument on its face. Making two namespaces rather than one will *encourage* squatting and *punish* end users, since it means squatters can look for active names in one namespace and squat them in the other namespace, and average users will have to register two names instead of one.sudoquai wrote:I think to remember, the OneName developer team mentioned, that a lot of /id and /d Names are cybersquatted. According to this they decided to start with a fresh namespace.
This is maybe not really a problem, because the features and interface of OneName can be ported to the /id namespace (i am using both - /id and and /u for the time), so the user itself could decide itself, which is fitting better to him. As far as i know somebody started OneID - i don't know if its the contrary approach to OneName, didn't have the time to check it better. For interested users: http://oneid.io. Competition is good (similar to BitShares and Namecoin which try to solve the same thing - they can learn from each other).
My opinion is as well, they could have made OneName working with /id namespace, but they didn't because i assume, the try to make their system working of different Blockchains. Nevertheless it's very usefull that the OneName code is OpenSource. Interested people can just port the OneName code to /ID (i like for example the neat webinterface to OneName) or contribute code to OneID.io instead.
Also, you're on fucking drugs if you think this has anything to do with different blockchains. u/ and id/ both use the Namecoin blockchain, and have nothing to do with other blockchains whatsoever.
What source code for OneName.io exists? I can't find anything obvious on GitHub. Link?