Namecoin Forum

Coins are lost with each name_firstupdate (Edit: name_new and name_update don't lose coins) operations and this leads to a decreasing total number of namecoins.
We have already lost ~60K namecoins.

Consequences are :
- namecoin value will change too fast (losing coins leads to more value for remaining coins)
- the 0.01NC limit (the minimum cost of a domain) will need to be decreased regularly because 0.01NC may be too expensive to buy a name

Here is a simple proposal :
- use traditional fees to charge for each name_* operations
- allow more than 1K data per name : 10K may be sufficient, with future sub and merge records (like in bitcoin, it will cost you more for big transactions)
- keep the decreasing name price like it is, it's not a real problem

Consequences are :
- all fees goes to miners => more coins available
- total number of namecoin will not decrease
- total number of namecoin will increase more, allowing more names to be registered, without being blocked by the artificial limit of 0.01NC
- you pay for what you use and cost to other : big transaction => more fees

Agreed. Also I think it'd be better to get rid of the 0.01 nmc limit for the name_firstupdate fee and let it keep decreasing in perpetuity.

Btw, I thought only name_firstupdate destroyed coins.

JohnDoe wrote:Btw, I thought only name_firstupdate destroyed coins.

Indeed, after having created a namecoin block explorer, i can confirm you that only name_firstupdate lose coins.

I've also added a total number of lost coins on it, which is near 50K. We now have the real value instead of an estimation...

So with the decreasing rate of cost for "name_firstupdate" then the number of coins lost will slow to nothing quite quickly.

I think it works out, because it stops the initial rush for names but then goes away to nothing, it will be a finite number that are lost forever. Meanwhile it helps to bootstrap by keeping them relatively scarce.

moa wrote:I think it works out, because it stops the initial rush for names but then goes away to nothing, it will be a finite number that are lost forever. Meanwhile it helps to bootstrap by keeping them relatively scarce.

Simply put those lost coins in transactions fees, and the rush is avoided too.

moa wrote:So with the decreasing rate of cost for "name_firstupdate" then the number of coins lost will slow to nothing quite quickly.

If the number of people using namecoin stays the same : yes, % of lost coins will decrease. But if the number of people grows, the problem is still here. Later, there will be more people, but still the same number of coins generated each day. In 1 year, lost coins will be 1 per name, but if 50 persons get a name, compared to now with 2 persons with a cost of 25NC... Even with 0.01NC (current defined lower limit), the number of lost coins could be significant, and we may need to change this limit.

If the number of people using namecoin stays the same : yes, % of lost coins will decrease. But if the number of people grows, the problem is still here. Later, there will be more people, but still the same number of coins generated each day. In 1 year, lost coins will be 1 per name, but if 50 persons get a name, compared to now with 2 persons with a cost of 25NC... Even with 0.01NC (current defined lower limit), the number of lost coins could be significant, and we may need to change this limit.

Well if the possibility exists that all the coins could be spent out of existence registering names it is definitely unsustainable. Let's keep them in circulation by paying out as fees.

More incentive to miners for net security also. Maybe wait until a set block height to change to payback registration as fees. If it is still high, there will be some large miners from BTC network that could just come over and register a bunch of names and then make sure they get all the fees back when they get the block ... i.e. names for free. For example, wait until registration cost = 5 NMC i.e. at block ~28000 and then switch so it is well announced in advance .. or wait until registration cost = 10 NMC ... etc. Need to run some numbers to see what makes most sense.

What should happen is that if a domain expires, then the total number of coins used to pay for it should go back into circulation. Suppose a society uses copper as its medium of exchange. One day, someone decides to make a suit of copper armor to protect himself from a recent upswing in crime. Eventually, crime goes back down and he decides to sell that armor to the market. The suit of armor is lost, but its value enters the exchange market since copper is the medium of exchange. The example is silly, but it would make sense for the "raw materials" (Namecoins) of a domain to be recycled back into circulation.

moa wrote: More incentive to miners for net security also. Maybe wait until a set block height to change to payback registration as fees. If it is still high, there will be some large miners from BTC network that could just come over and register a bunch of names and then make sure they get all the fees back when they get the block ... i.e. names for free.

Waiting will not change that problem. You pay 5, you get back your 5 in next block => still free. Squatter's paradise ! (see below :p)

Anth0n wrote:What should happen is that if a domain expires, then the total number of coins used to pay for it should go back into circulation.

It would be more difficult to do that... And worst, you can just reserve any name you can with your namecoins (just spend 1000$ ?) and sell some of them at high price (because people want them), you are assured not to lose your money for other names :p. Squatter's paradise !


So, is there a real solution to this problem ?

khal wrote: It would be more difficult to do that... And worst, you can just reserve any name you can with your namecoins (just spend 1000$ ?) and sell some of them at high price (because people want them), you are assured not to lose your money for other names :p. Squatter's paradise !

I think you misunderstood. The coins for the expired domains would not go back to the domain's owner. They would go back to the "earth" to be found by miners once again. Of course, I'm using the term "earth" as a mining metaphor.

Anth0n wrote:

khal wrote: It would be more difficult to do that... And worst, you can just reserve any name you can with your namecoins (just spend 1000$ ?) and sell some of them at high price (because people want them), you are assured not to lose your money for other names :p. Squatter's paradise !

I think you misunderstood. The coins for the expired domains would not go back to the domain's owner. They would go back to the "earth" to be found by miners once again. Of course, I'm using the term "earth" as a mining metaphor.

+1

I like that.

A similar thing could be done to guard against lost coins due to lost wallets.

Coins are associated with addresses

Have some means of pinging addresses to check that they are still in use (transactions being made regularly)

If an address has not been used in a certain amount of time, then kill that address and release all coins back into the NMC earth, ready to be mined again.

People who do not use their address that often, will need to be made aware of the need to either perform some sort of transaction, or to move their coins to another address on a regular basis.