Can be circumvented but not by the most users, especially not by those with less technical knowledge.domob wrote:I don't think one can even compare those two instances of "censorship": In the first case, it is about limiting the values that can be stored in names; this can be circumvented and is not actually a vital "restriction" for this reason, at least in theory you can still store whatever you like with a proper encoding, and have your tools interpret it in the way you need. And if Namecoin is used the way it is intended (i. e., for instance DNS resolution), then there won't be any restriction at all; we are only talking about making it more difficult to store content into the blockchain that would be "invalid" under the defined use-cases anyway.virtual_master wrote:So do you mean limiting value fields lead only by fear is no censorship(even if many possible applications wouldn't be available with this) and introducing auctioning/contesting of names lead by economic interest is a censorship ?domob wrote: I fully agree! IMHO, the point of Namecoin is exactly that: Uncensorable and unseizable names.
With encryption is the same question because this will also limit usability.
I think is exactly the opposite is the case. Acting lead by fear (without any technical or economical argument) we are only the prolonged hand of the government.
The 'censorship' by contesting domain names can be also circumvented if the user pays the max amount(1 NMC or 100 NMC depending on the domain name length) of fee which was set for that length. And that would be even easier to circumvent it even for a IT professional not to speak about the average user.
Since when is buying = stealing of something which is not owned just rented for a half of year ? Giving it to the highest bidder is just part of a disclaimer(if it wasn't payed for exclusive right). It is just if you are living in a cheap hotel and with 10 peoples in a room and somebody is renting the entire room, you are removed to another room. If you pay more you can have a better room exclusively. By stealing the money is taken and not given back if you don't receive the service. This is not the case because the locked fee would be returned entirely. We should use the proper words for it.domob wrote: In the second case, we are talking about stealing ownership of names, which is on a completely different level.
Auctioning/contesting names can protect Namecoin also giving for the government and for Google(and for other trademark name owners also) a reasonable alternative.domob wrote: I think that in order to shield Namecoin in general from legal prosecution, it is prudent to implement necessary measures for plausible deniability (again, everyone who wants can circumvent restrictions on what can go into name values, and write tools to still implement their use whatever it is), but that we should not allow names themselves to be taken from their rightful owners for whatever reason. This would invalidate the whole purpose of Namecoin, as in this case, there's no way to circumvent it for the owners who lose the names. Of course, a government could make it illegal to possess the IP addresses or .onion names of Wikileaks, like it is illegal to possess, for instance, child pornography. (But even here value encryption will help.) Or make it illegal to provide an alternative DNS system at all that doesn't allow trademark owners to get their names; but if it comes to that, then every last bit of sanety failed already, and it probably doesn't make any difference at all anymore whether Namecoin is considered illegal under those rules or not.
Do you really think that the "restriction" imposed by requiring name/value pairs to be encrypted is comparable to the damage done to the freedom Namecoin provides if we allow arbitrary parties to steal names by paying more than someone may be able to afford in order to keep the name (although they are the rightful owners)? I don't. Maybe the comparison lacks a bit, but to me this sounds as if Bitcoin wanted to make transactions reversible because it would be of better economic use to the community to reverse, for instance, the pirateat40 payments. Any idea why they aren't talking about that?
Reversing BTC transactions in Bitcoin can only compared with reversing NMC transactions in Namecoin, anything else is manipulative word use.
And YES. I beleave if people cannot include their GPG signature and encryption keys to protect their privacy has a much higher damage then imposing a contesting system for names if not the full amount of fee was payed.