It's worth pointing out that more research would be useful on how exactly identity use cases and DNS use cases differ on scalability. But the research I've done on the DNS use cases suggest that DNS is not too far from the upper limit of what we can handle. And that research assumes that people won't be doing things like on-chain dynamic DNS. My research is fairly preliminary (it makes up a lot of numbers, which I think are within ballpark but are not backed by empirical evidence), but the solution is to do more research, not to discount research as a useful tool here.johnc wrote:If data is allowed on a name doesn't mean that people will use it for spam.Not having to depend on "import" for space so much would also simplify the implementation of Namecoin services.
Just look the namesquatters, they just post a bitmessage address...
Services like Onename were not scalable, we can't have everyone's id on chain, eventually it becomes expensive.
However if Namecoin only allows to store a tiny amount of data what is the point? Bitcoin does that already!
Well, to store all data used on a regular DNS service. You can point to dns servers or just include all the info onchain. Making impossible-to-shutdown domains a reality, which is the point of Namecoin.
Unlike the onename case, not everyone needs a domain name, so there will always be enought namecoins for domains, as unlike bitcoin, we don't expect everyone to register domains, but just to be able to access them, read them.
If anyone thinks that storing 4 KiB GPG keys in the blockchain is sufficiently scalable that we should change our consensus rules to facilitate it, I think the burden of evidence should be on them.