Namecoin Forum

John Kenney wrote:Vircurex was so buggy they didn't need to get hacked. You need to have some standards. Only incompetent exchanges get hacked or allow people to lose money with such huge bugs. Several other exchanges are really shady too. If you can try not to promote a big scam exchange it'll not damage namecoin's reputation as much.

Do you happen to have a reference there? I'm unaware of Vircurex being a scam. Lots of exchanges have poor security; it's not easy to tell which those are until it's too late. Obviously we should make it clear that we're not endorsing the listed exchanges and that users should do due diligence, but I don't think discriminating against exchanges is a great solution.

biolizard89 wrote:

John Kenney wrote:Vircurex was so buggy they didn't need to get hacked. You need to have some standards. Only incompetent exchanges get hacked or allow people to lose money with such huge bugs. Several other exchanges are really shady too. If you can try not to promote a big scam exchange it'll not damage namecoin's reputation as much.

Do you happen to have a reference there? I'm unaware of Vircurex being a scam. Lots of exchanges have poor security; it's not easy to tell which those are until it's too late. Obviously we should make it clear that we're not endorsing the listed exchanges and that users should do due diligence, but I don't think discriminating against exchanges is a great solution.

Take a look at the later pages of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49383.980. While not really a scam (at least not for sure), they used a very weird method to distribute the remaining BTC and LTC to partially unfreeze balances, did some odd things while actually freezing the balances (announce in advance but let people still trade and then even shift the announced freeze deadline some times - possibly to make more money from fear trade) and also it seems that there hasn't been any information / customer support replies at all about the current status since then. A honest exchange who has been hacked and tries hard to make everyone whole in a fair way looks different to me.

domob wrote:

biolizard89 wrote:

John Kenney wrote:Vircurex was so buggy they didn't need to get hacked. You need to have some standards. Only incompetent exchanges get hacked or allow people to lose money with such huge bugs. Several other exchanges are really shady too. If you can try not to promote a big scam exchange it'll not damage namecoin's reputation as much.

Do you happen to have a reference there? I'm unaware of Vircurex being a scam. Lots of exchanges have poor security; it's not easy to tell which those are until it's too late. Obviously we should make it clear that we're not endorsing the listed exchanges and that users should do due diligence, but I don't think discriminating against exchanges is a great solution.

Take a look at the later pages of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49383.980. While not really a scam (at least not for sure), they used a very weird method to distribute the remaining BTC and LTC to partially unfreeze balances, did some odd things while actually freezing the balances (announce in advance but let people still trade and then even shift the announced freeze deadline some times - possibly to make more money from fear trade) and also it seems that there hasn't been any information / customer support replies at all about the current status since then. A honest exchange who has been hacked and tries hard to make everyone whole in a fair way looks different to me.

It does sound bad, yes. I guess have a policy that large-scale unaddressed fraud/insolvency claims make an exchange ineligible for being listed?

indolering wrote:Bitcoin Foundation pricing:

Platinum: $100,000
Gold: $25,000
Silver, large: $5,000
Silver, medium: $2,500
Silver, small: $1,000
Lifetime: $250
Individual: $25

These are life time memberships I think.... and Namecoin is way smaller than Bitcoin. If I divide that by 10 to factor in yearly payment and then divide it by 5 (haha) because we are smaller then I get to prices similar to what I suggested above. Also if NMC price rises it will get more automatically.

They have a single platinum member, 5 gold members, and a shitload of silver members. What if we broke it down by volume, with gold at 10%, silver at 5%, and bronze at 1%? I'm not sure how we would audit non-exchange-based businesses, such as registrars.

The problem with the volume is that 95% is btc-e. Maybe this list can even help add some more volume to the smaller exchanges, would certainly not hurt.

I don't see how we can exclude any exchange from the list. It would be a good thing to point out that we do not verify exchanges in any way.

I would like to push this as we got a request from yet another exchange.

biolizard89 wrote:Might be good to make explicit that we might revise the numbers after the end of the yearly period.

This is a good idea and we should certainly do it and be transparent about it.

Generally this idea (take donations for being on the list) makes sense.

But donation must not be the key factor to be placed high. Some due dilligence, project hisotry and user's satisfactory level must be considered.

Gold status will worth nothing if the only thing you need to have to obtain it is money.
Make a section like "Trusted" nad put good exchange site (that have good feedback by NMC community) there by default. If some of them donate - move to the specific ranked section.
New exchanges list in "To be checked" list or smth like that

About BTCFoundation: we are a sliver member there, but I was totally confused when we obtained that status. The question of membership was solved immediately as soon as we paid. Nothing was checked...site, company, staff, user's feedback...maybe it is a

Regarding prices, it is my humble opinion that they could be a little bit lower; it is not correctly to be compared with BTC FOundation, since they are the biggest and most official crypto currency community.

Cryptonit_B wrote:Generally this idea (take donations for being on the list) makes sense.

But donation must not be the key factor to be placed high. Some due dilligence, project hisotry and user's satisfactory level must be considered.

Gold status will worth nothing if the only thing you need to have to obtain it is money.
Make a section like "Trusted" nad put good exchange site (that have good feedback by NMC community) there by default. If some of them donate - move to the specific ranked section.
New exchanges list in "To be checked" list or smth like that

About BTCFoundation: we are a sliver member there, but I was totally confused when we obtained that status. The question of membership was solved immediately as soon as we paid. Nothing was checked...site, company, staff, user's feedback...maybe it is a

Unforunately we don't currently have the resources to properly review the exchanges. Also it seems even exchanges with the highest trust can fail.

Regarding prices, it is my humble opinion that they could be a little bit lower; it is not correctly to be compared with BTC FOundation, since they are the biggest and most official crypto currency community.

A "could be a little bit lower" sounds like it is just about right We'll see about comparison to the BTC Foundation...

Let's go along with 1000/300/100 and may review them should it become necessary (too little / too high "members").

http://namecoin.info/beta/?p=exchanges

Pull requests welcome: http://github.com/namecoin/namecoin.info/tree/beta

Phelix: you are rocking it man. All your judgement calls here make sense to me.

I think we can handle de-listing on a case-by-case basis until we get enough capacity and history to come up with a formal policy.

I think Kraken is willing to put up some money to be a sponsor. We can figure it out later, but what if we put a badge (or maybe just a heart emoticon?) for exchanges that support Namecoin in terms of development?

indolering wrote:Phelix: you are rocking it man. All your judgement calls here make sense to me.

I think we can handle de-listing on a case-by-case basis until we get enough capacity and history to come up with a formal policy.

I think Kraken is willing to put up some money to be a sponsor. We can figure it out later, but what if we put a badge (or maybe just a heart emoticon?) for exchanges that support Namecoin in terms of development?

Yup, a badge would be nice!