Newbie looking to get involved

[sparring.darkman]

Hi,

I'm new to namecoin and I'd like to get involved. I do have a few questions though.

In the current set up, the number of namecoins (and bitcoins) will eventually max out, correct? I was wondering what the economic implications of this would be. As a currency, it seems like namecoin should encourage spending and transactions. Therefore it seems like the value of namecoins should slowly depreciate over time (inflation). With the current setup, it seems feasible that you could be in a situation where more and more people use namecoins, but the supply is constant. With increased demand, the value of namecoins would go up, encouraging people to simply hold onto their namecoins. This is bad because now people are avoiding spending and transactions. At this point, the value of namecoins may start to drop so now people would start spending them again. Now the cycle could start over again and the value could go up again, however this volatile value of a currency seems bad for creating a stable market.

Does namecoin allow the network to maintain multiple tables? For instance, it seems like a good idea to have separate tables for dns, identity, etc. Then each table can have an independent set of key value pairs, but have their own restrictions. For instance, dns could restrict keys to be of the (regex) form "[a-z0-9]+\.bit". The value would be as defined by the current specification. The identity table could be a mapping of identities (strings) to sets of public keys. Then the public keys could be used to authenticate, encrypt, or digitally sign in regards to that identity.

One more thing. Have you considered adding a "static" field to the dns specification? The static subdomain could be one which tells browsers not to send cookies, etc. This could be an optimization for delivering static files.

Is there anyway I can help? I can program.

Thanks,

SD

Ps. The forum's blacklist makes it a HUGE pain to use Tor.

[jdbtracker]

Currently everyone here is doing a rebase of Bitcoin for Namecoin, there is an already agreed upon list of things to do. which I am not sure what they are but they are written somewhere in one of the forum topics.

[virtual_master]

Hi,

I'm new to namecoin and I'd like to get involved. I do have a few questions though.

In the current set up, the number of namecoins (and bitcoins) will eventually max out, correct? I was wondering what the economic implications of this would be. As a currency, it seems like namecoin should encourage spending and transactions. Therefore it seems like the value of namecoins should slowly depreciate over time (inflation). With the current setup, it seems feasible that you could be in a situation where more and more people use namecoins, but the supply is constant. With increased demand, the value of namecoins would go up, encouraging people to simply hold onto their namecoins. This is bad because now people are avoiding spending and transactions. At this point, the value of namecoins may start to drop so now people would start spending them again. Now the cycle could start over again and the value could go up again, however this volatile value of a currency seems bad for creating a stable market.

Does namecoin allow the network to maintain multiple tables? For instance, it seems like a good idea to have separate tables for dns, identity, etc. Then each table can have an independent set of key value pairs, but have their own restrictions. For instance, dns could restrict keys to be of the (regex) form "[a-z0-9]+\.bit". The value would be as defined by the current specification. The identity table could be a mapping of identities (strings) to sets of public keys. Then the public keys could be used to authenticate, encrypt, or digitally sign in regards to that identity.

One more thing. Have you considered adding a "static" field to the dns specification? The static subdomain could be one which tells browsers not to send cookies, etc. This could be an optimization for delivering static files.

Is there anyway I can help? I can program.

Thanks,

SD

Ps. The forum's blacklist makes it a HUGE pain to use Tor.

Hi!
Welcome in the Namecoin Forum.
Thank you for interest.
Best would be if you read a little bit the available documentations and search in the forum also about the topics you mentioned. They are some separated threads which discuss about each issue.

'The forum's blacklist makes it a HUGE pain to use Tor.'
Yeah. Unfortunately we still didn't found an optimal solution how to block spam but you can look the threads with proposals and you could make a proposal for a better solution.

'Is there anyway I can help? I can program.'
I am glad to hear that. Sure you can.
Namecoin is decentral and the development is also totally decentralized.
You can read how Namecoin works and about possible applications and find a field what you like most and nobody can stop you to make an application for Namecoin. But there is also nobody who would tell you what you have to do.
You can also test the existing applications and write a test report or combine different applications.
You could also implement Namecoin support in other existing applications. (especially the DNS and ID system)
Thanks.

[biolizard89]

Hi,

I'm new to namecoin and I'd like to get involved. I do have a few questions though.

Awesome, welcome!

In the current set up, the number of namecoins (and bitcoins) will eventually max out, correct? I was wondering what the economic implications of this would be. As a currency, it seems like namecoin should encourage spending and transactions. Therefore it seems like the value of namecoins should slowly depreciate over time (inflation). With the current setup, it seems feasible that you could be in a situation where more and more people use namecoins, but the supply is constant. With increased demand, the value of namecoins would go up, encouraging people to simply hold onto their namecoins. This is bad because now people are avoiding spending and transactions. At this point, the value of namecoins may start to drop so now people would start spending them again. Now the cycle could start over again and the value could go up again, however this volatile value of a currency seems bad for creating a stable market.

There is discussion in a thread on changing fee structure. However, this is kind of a lower priority than getting Namecoin rebased on the latest Bitcoin source, so it's kind on the back burner in terms of implementation. However, even though it won't be implemented yet, we'd welcome some discussion on this.

Does namecoin allow the network to maintain multiple tables? For instance, it seems like a good idea to have separate tables for dns, identity, etc. Then each table can have an independent set of key value pairs, but have their own restrictions. For instance, dns could restrict keys to be of the (regex) form "[a-z0-9]+\.bit". The value would be as defined by the current specification. The identity table could be a mapping of identities (strings) to sets of public keys. Then the public keys could be used to authenticate, encrypt, or digitally sign in regards to that identity.

One of the design features of Namecoin is that the blockchain doesn't care what names are used for. E.g. if I want to create an app that uses Namecoin, I can make a new namespace without getting approval from anyone. As a result, validation of the values of names is done by the user apps, not by the Namecoin daemon.

One more thing. Have you considered adding a "static" field to the dns specification? The static subdomain could be one which tells browsers not to send cookies, etc. This could be an optimization for delivering static files.

To be honest I don't see much practical benefit from this. Can you elaborate on a use case where this would make a significant difference? HTTP headers are pretty minimal in size already, even if using Tor or something like that.

Is there anyway I can help? I can program.

Thanks,

SD

Absolutely. Unfortunately there's no organized list of programming tasks (hopefully that will change soon), but feel free to look around the forum and/or the wiki, and if you find a project you'd like to work on, ask around and someone will probably be able to help you get started.

Ps. The forum's blacklist makes it a HUGE pain to use Tor.

Yeah, this is a problem. My primary ISP is frequently blacklisted too. We'd love to find a good way to deal with this; unfortunately khal is the only one with admin access to the forum and he's away right now. So any fixes would have to wait until khal gets back.

[jprider63]

The OP mentioned getting rid of the limit on the maximum number of coins. If we want namecoin to be a real currency, here's a reason to do so:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/busin ... epage&_r=0

TLDR: A little, continuous inflation is good for an economy. Deflation is bad.

To be honest I don't see much practical benefit from this. Can you elaborate on a use case where this would make a significant difference? HTTP headers are pretty minimal in size already, even if using Tor or something like that.

Here's a reason to do so:

https://developers.google.com/speed/doc ... lessDomain

Large scale companies are purchasing separate domains to deliver static content. It'd be nice if the dns namespace could support it so that this is unnecessary.

[virtual_master]

https://developers.google.com/speed/doc ... lessDomain

Large scale companies are purchasing separate domains to deliver static content. It'd be nice if the dns namespace could support it so that this is unnecessary.

1. This is a completely different issue and has to do with content delivery and not with the domain system.
The Namecoin d/ namespace(now for .bit domains) is a decentralized domain system and not a content delivery system or a webserver.
2. I don't think that large companies with such content delivery like Google, Yahoo or Microsoft will need .bit domains.
3. Even in the link provided by you is stated that the static delivery must be configured by the webserver. As far as I know no domain system has such a specification for the content - to be static or dynamic.
But if Google will need something like that I am sure they can create it so we don't need to think about it.
4. Such a separation of content on different domains or subdomains could have sense in some cases(for speed) when the content is delivered from different servers but that can anybody separate and configure on his own webserver.
But even in such cases proxy caching and browser caching is a very weird thing with a source of lot of mistakes and bugs where you loose more time than you win.

The OP mentioned getting rid of the limit on the maximum number of coins. If we want namecoin to be a real currency, here's a reason to do so:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/busin ... epage&_r=0

TLDR: A little, continuous inflation is good for an economy. Deflation is bad.

Oh man. The governments are interested to propagate the inflationary financial ideology because so they can steal the money from the people with inflation. Namecoin is just like Bitcoin is a honest system serving the users interests.
The deflationary economy works very well. Just look the electronic, computer and software industry.
The maximum number of coins shouldn't be touched otherwise people would loose trust in the Namecoin system.

But in one point you have right. We need to make people more active in the Namecoin system.
I was thinking how to stimulate people to be more active in the Namecoin economy.
How is working this in the fiat financial system ?
If you just keep your money you will loose some because of the inflation. So you will need to bind it for longer term that your interests will cover the inflation rate or you have a win.
That could we do with a deflationary system also with demurrage.
Keeping Namecoins without binding would cause demurrage. (Let's say 2%/year) The demurrage fee would be calculated by the transaction depending how long was that amount unused and without binding. The demurrage fee would come as additional revenue for the miners. (no destroying)
Binding Namecoins for (let's say) 1/2 year would have 0% demurrage. That means that you have to decide it and make a binding transaction (a transfer of the coins to yourself). The coins invested wouldn't be available for 1/2 year.
This would be a self regulating system. If you don't care of your coins and let to stay without investing why should the miners take care of it with there POW without any fee ? If you invest it the Namecoins invested wouldn't be available so less namecoins on the market by the same ask would drive the prices higher and the miners would profit of it having higher value for the mined namecoins.
The Namecoin network would be better protected this way.
This wouldn't stop you trading and spending Namecoins(if they are available and not invested).
Anyway only the namecoins not in use will be invested with binding.

[jprider63]

1. This is a completely different issue and has to do with content delivery and not with the domain system.
The Namecoin d/ namespace(now for .bit domains) is a decentralized domain system and not a content delivery system or a webserver.

Right, but content delivery is dependent on and integrated with the domain system. If the domain system can provide an optimization for web services and content delivery, shouldn't we enable it?

2. I don't think that large companies with such content delivery like Google, Yahoo or Microsoft will need .bit domains.

Maybe not, but it doesn't mean they won't use it. Hopefully they will use it, which would benefit namecoin. We should incentivize these companies to use namecoin by providing these optimizations.

3. Even in the link provided by you is stated that the static delivery must be configured by the webserver. As far as I know no domain system has such a specification for the content - to be static or dynamic.

Great, we can be the first! This would be an advantage so large scale don't need to purchase additional domains just to deliver static content.

4. Such a separation of content on different domains or subdomains could have sense in some cases(for speed) when the content is delivered from different servers but that can anybody separate and configure on his own webserver.
But even in such cases proxy caching and browser caching is a very weird thing with a source of lot of mistakes and bugs where you loose more time than you win.

I think it would be hard to loose by sending less information, but I suppose it could happen.

[jprider63]

Oh man. The governments are interested to propagate the inflationary financial ideology because so they can steal the money from the people with inflation. Namecoin is just like Bitcoin is a honest system serving the users interests.
The deflationary economy works very well. Just look the electronic, computer and software industry.

Can you give a more detailed example? I don't follow. Electronic hardware is not a currency. We are not trying to encourage spending or trading of electronics.

The maximum number of coins shouldn't be touched otherwise people would loose trust in the Namecoin system.

I don't think this is necessarily true. The chain is still relatively young, and people should expect changes to be made and the system to mature. People didn't jump ship after the vulnerability was found in client code.

But in one point you have right. We need to make people more active in the Namecoin system.
I was thinking how to stimulate people to be more active in the Namecoin economy.
How is working this in the fiat financial system ?
If you just keep your money you will loose some because of the inflation. So you will need to bind it for longer term that your interests will cover the inflation rate or you have a win.
That could we do with a deflationary system also with demurrage.
Keeping Namecoins without binding would cause demurrage. (Let's say 2%/year) The demurrage fee would be calculated by the transaction depending how long was that amount unused and without binding. The demurrage fee would come as additional revenue for the miners. (no destroying)
Binding Namecoins for (let's say) 1/2 year would have 0% demurrage. That means that you have to decide it and make a binding transaction (a transfer of the coins to yourself). The coins invested wouldn't be available for 1/2 year.
This would be a self regulating system. If you don't care of your coins and let to stay without investing why should the miners take care of it with there POW without any fee ? If you invest it the Namecoins invested wouldn't be available so less namecoins on the market by the same ask would drive the prices higher and the miners would profit of it having higher value for the mined namecoins.
The Namecoin network would be better protected this way.
This wouldn't stop you trading and spending Namecoins(if they are available and not invested).
Anyway only the namecoins not in use will be invested with binding.

Personally, I think this sounds like a bad idea. Who are we to tell people: "spend your money or lose it"? Who would want to use such a currency? Demurrage has the same effect as inflation, however it has negative connotations. It would restrict how users could spend their coins, and make it more difficult to keep track of when you'd need to spend which coin. It also seems very complicated and difficult to implement correctly, without allowing possibilities of abuse.

[biolizard89]

To be honest I don't see much practical benefit from this. Can you elaborate on a use case where this would make a significant difference? HTTP headers are pretty minimal in size already, even if using Tor or something like that.

Here's a reason to do so:

https://developers.google.com/speed/doc ... lessDomain

Large scale companies are purchasing separate domains to deliver static content. It'd be nice if the dns namespace could support it so that this is unnecessary.

I'm not following what this has to do with dot-bit. The link you gave said that a separate domain is necessary. Can't you already do this via the "map" field? Why would we need a DNS field for disabling cookies when the web server can just not set any cookies?

[virtual_master]

Oh man. The governments are interested to propagate the inflationary financial ideology because so they can steal the money from the people with inflation. Namecoin is just like Bitcoin is a honest system serving the users interests.
The deflationary economy works very well. Just look the electronic, computer and software industry.

Can you give a more detailed example? I don't follow. Electronic hardware is not a currency. We are not trying to encourage spending or trading of electronics.

The most propagated economic theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Keynesian_economics
'stable unemployment and modest inflation'

Electronic hardware is product. USD is currency. The electronic hardware production industry can be regarded separated as a deflationary economy. Why ? You buy a computer with 900 USD. In 1 year you can buy the same computer in the same store with 600 USD. Your money in USD has increased in value for this economy branch.

The maximum number of coins shouldn't be touched otherwise people would loose trust in the Namecoin system.

I don't think this is necessarily true. The chain is still relatively young, and people should expect changes to be made and the system to mature. People didn't jump ship after the vulnerability was found in client code.

But in one point you have right. We need to make people more active in the Namecoin system.
I was thinking how to stimulate people to be more active in the Namecoin economy.
How is working this in the fiat financial system ?
If you just keep your money you will loose some because of the inflation. So you will need to bind it for longer term that your interests will cover the inflation rate or you have a win.
That could we do with a deflationary system also with demurrage.
Keeping Namecoins without binding would cause demurrage. (Let's say 2%/year) The demurrage fee would be calculated by the transaction depending how long was that amount unused and without binding. The demurrage fee would come as additional revenue for the miners. (no destroying)
Binding Namecoins for (let's say) 1/2 year would have 0% demurrage. That means that you have to decide it and make a binding transaction (a transfer of the coins to yourself). The coins invested wouldn't be available for 1/2 year.
This would be a self regulating system. If you don't care of your coins and let to stay without investing why should the miners take care of it with there POW without any fee ? If you invest it the Namecoins invested wouldn't be available so less namecoins on the market by the same ask would drive the prices higher and the miners would profit of it having higher value for the mined namecoins.
The Namecoin network would be better protected this way.
This wouldn't stop you trading and spending Namecoins(if they are available and not invested).
Anyway only the namecoins not in use will be invested with binding.

Personally, I think this sounds like a bad idea. Who are we to tell people: "spend your money or lose it"? Who would want to use such a currency? Demurrage has the same effect as inflation, however it has negative connotations. It would restrict how users could spend their coins, and make it more difficult to keep track of when you'd need to spend which coin. It also seems very complicated and difficult to implement correctly, without allowing possibilities of abuse.

By currencies generally demurrage is the cost associated with owning or holding a currency.
Specifically by Namecoin the this costs would be associated with the running network nodes which are consuming electricity, the miners are securing the network.
Demurage is the honest solution for what the inflation is the dishonest solution.
If implemented then the network tells to the people the demurrage costs.
I am aware that the idea is not so popular but keeping it very low could be beneficial.
It could be even 1% demurrage/year. But if you bind your coins you can get 1% interests. That would keep balance because not more then 50% of the owners will bind their coins.
So could be created a second layer of coin(and eventually Proof of Stack block) production like PPC uses but not inflationary, just financed from the demurrage.
The merged mining with Bitcoin layer would be kept and a second with Proof of Stack would be added. That would improve network security.
The unpopularity of demurrage would be compensated by the popularity of creating own coins with POS. I think the popularity effect it would have a positive ballance because people are thinking more what they can win than what they can loose.