The first secure, decentralized, human-meaningful naming system.
https://forum.namecoin.org/
You can add 37.187.243.109 (running old client) or 192.99.247.234 (Namecoin Core).jonasbits wrote:Is there any nodes for testnet that I can connect to with the namecoin-core client, i tried nmctest.net, no luck.
I agree that, IMHO, "Namecore" sounds easier and simpler than "Namecoin Core". Jeremy argues that "Namecore" should be reserved for a future port of "Bitcore", which is (apparently - I didn't know that) a JS library.phelix wrote:Sorry, I had missed the discussion above in this thread. What is the issue with "namecore"? "namecoin-core" is too long imho. "namecoinc", "namecoinr", "namecoinb"... hmmm... domob?
Bitcore is not just any JS library, it's a JS library which Ryan already ported to Namecoin (albeit not with the full feature set, I think), and which we were recommending to GSoC students on the ideas page. I think these factors make it especially important to be consistent.domob wrote:I agree that, IMHO, "Namecore" sounds easier and simpler than "Namecoin Core". Jeremy argues that "Namecore" should be reserved for a future port of "Bitcore", which is (apparently - I didn't know that) a JS library.phelix wrote:Sorry, I had missed the discussion above in this thread. What is the issue with "namecore"? "namecoin-core" is too long imho. "namecoinc", "namecoinr", "namecoinb"... hmmm... domob?
Any alternative name suggestions?biolizard89 wrote:Bitcore is not just any JS library, it's a JS library which Ryan already ported to Namecoin (albeit not with the full feature set, I think), and which we were recommending to GSoC students on the ideas page. I think these factors make it especially important to be consistent.domob wrote:I agree that, IMHO, "Namecore" sounds easier and simpler than "Namecoin Core". Jeremy argues that "Namecore" should be reserved for a future port of "Bitcore", which is (apparently - I didn't know that) a JS library.phelix wrote:Sorry, I had missed the discussion above in this thread. What is the issue with "namecore"? "namecoin-core" is too long imho. "namecoinc", "namecoinr", "namecoinb"... hmmm... domob?
Not really. Bitcoin Core is still using the plain "bitcoin" name for their repo. Their filenames are still bitcoind and bitcoin-qt. The "Bitcoin Core" name is primarily used in their GUI and for differentiation between implementations.phelix wrote:Any alternative name suggestions?biolizard89 wrote:Bitcore is not just any JS library, it's a JS library which Ryan already ported to Namecoin (albeit not with the full feature set, I think), and which we were recommending to GSoC students on the ideas page. I think these factors make it especially important to be consistent.
I'm merging changes from bitcoin/bitcoin to namecoin/namecore's "auxpow" branch, and then on to "master". If there are conflicts (like when you edited the file and upstream changes it as well), I'll have to manually resolve them. So I would prefer to create a separate file for Namecoin - or, "git mv" the existing file to something like "build-osx.btc.md" and create "build-osx.md" from scratch. If you do not think that is a good idea, you can just give me the license to throw away upstream changes and keep your version whenever conflicts happen.cassini wrote:Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I haven't found out what the synchronization process between bitcoin/bitcoin and namecoin/namecore looks like:
What is the recommended procedure for creating a PR for files frequently updated by the Bitcoin devs?
I'd like to make several changes to build-osx.md. As soon as the Bitcoin developers update their original file my changes get overwritten, don't they?
(I do not think I'm qualified to fully review and merge conflicts about the OS X documentation.)What changes do you want to make Cassini? I personally don't think it's worth altering the build notes just for small changes (like using "namecoin" instead of "bitcoin") ... users who would get confused by small stuff probably shouldn't be using the command line. I believe that the plan is to use Armory for the GUI anyway.cassini wrote: I'd like to make several changes to build-osx.md.
I disagree. That text isn't changed very often, and the usability benefits of having accurate build instructions outweigh the bother of having to manually merge changes occasionally IMO. There are plenty of intermediate-expertise users who are comfortable with a command line but don't have extensive experience building software from source; making it easier for them is worthwhile.indolering wrote:I personally don't think it's worth altering the build notes just for small changes (like using "namecoin" instead of "bitcoin") ... users who would get confused by small stuff probably shouldn't be using the command line. I believe that the plan is to use Armory for the GUI anyway.
What branch are you referring to? I don't see a Namecoin-Core-related branch on namecoin/namecoin. I do support renaming the namecoin/namecore repo to namecoin/namecoin-core, assuming we're not just going to call it "namecoin". I also do support placing a deprecation notice on namecoin/namecoin so that we don't have new developers investing time into that repo.indolering wrote:Okay, we can't have both a branch AND a different repo, it's really confusing. If Phelix/Domob really wants a new repo, I'm fine with that but we can't have both.
Can someone either rename the namecore repo "namecoin-core" and remove the branch on namecoin/namecoin or remove the namecore repo and put some notice on the default namecoin/namecoin branch?