Namecoin Forum

biolizard89 wrote: 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.

I only meant for minor changes, obviously if something is broken then it should be altered! WRT the build notes for OS X, it's mainly just changing mentions of "Bitcoin" to "Namecoin" – the current instructions for OS X seem to build just fine as is (although I haven't tested the binaries).

biolizard89 wrote: What branch are you referring to? I don't see a Namecoin-Core-related branch on namecoin/namecoin.

I must have misread this thread, for some reason I thought we had created both a branch on namecoin/namecoin AND a new repo.

biolizard89 wrote: 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.

I agree, "Namecore" doesn't follow the Bitcoin Core naming convention and is results in a namespace collision with the JS library. I've opened an issue ticket on Github, please migrate discussion there.

As we have discussed the naming issue further up in this thread I think we should continue it here.

IMHO this is a non-issue.

I don't mind changing the repo name to namecoin-core but it is also different from Bitcoin (bitcoin/bitcoin).

indolering wrote:

biolizard89 wrote: 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.

I only meant for minor changes, obviously if something is broken then it should be altered! WRT the build notes for OS X, it's mainly just changing mentions of "Bitcoin" to "Namecoin" – the current instructions for OS X seem to build just fine as is (although I haven't tested the binaries).

If the instructions mention "bitcoin" in the context of a command to type (e.g. a Gitian VM path), we should change that, because some users will not realize that they need to change it there. I don't feel as strongly about the word Bitcoin appearing in paragraphs, since it's not really an instruction as much as documentation. Sorry if I was ambiguous.

phelix wrote:As we have discussed the naming issue further up in this thread I think we should continue it here.

IMHO this is a non-issue.

I don't mind changing the repo name to namecoin-core but it is also different from Bitcoin (bitcoin/bitcoin).

Personally I think GitHub is more organized than the forum for this purpose, but I don't feel very strongly.

From the reddit post, looks like the bitpay library was released as bitcore-namecoin so it should be a non-issue.

In other regards, it will be nice to have some updated binaries on the release tabs of namecore and nmcontrol (even if marked beta) so people can play with them.

johnc wrote:From the reddit post, looks like the bitpay library was released as bitcore-namecoin so it should be a non-issue.

In other regards, it will be nice to have some updated binaries on the release tabs of namecore and nmcontrol (even if marked beta) so people can play with them.

I think the Gitian descriptors from Bitcoin Core should still be sufficient for Namecoin Core. We don't need to get a huge, complex, fully-automated build system going to release a version of Namecoin Core. We can just have a bunch of people independently build and sign off and then use the result from anyone no matter how trusted or untrusted that person is. That (and knowing the build result came from the source) is the whole point of reproducible builds.

I did briefly look at a reproducible deb package for Namecoin Core and believe I had succeeded, but we don't even need all that. Bitcoin Core uses Launchpad for deb packages, so afaik, there is no effort on Bitcoin Core's behalf to make the "official" deb packages of Bitcoin Core reproducible.

I think we should release the results of the Gitian build like Bitcoin Core does and not worry about deb or other packages at this point.

I won't comment on NMControl, because I don't know as much of the current state and the format we plan to release it in.

Regarding the naming issue, I still think that Namecore is rather confusing, especially when there is a fork of Bitcore for Namecoin, even if it is named something other than the obvious choice of Namecore.

I personally don't think that having a branch named "namecoin-core" is too long. But there are ways to shorten it: nmc-core, core.

johnc wrote:From the reddit post, looks like the bitpay library was released as bitcore-namecoin so it should be a non-issue.

I deliberately named the JS library "bitcore-namecoin" to avoid colliding with the current "namecoin/namecore" and avoiding confusion in general. Also, since I didn't fork Bitpay's Bitcore and instead added namecoin-specific functionality via a module, I thought that calling it "namecore" would be a little misleading (as you can load the bitcore-namecoin module and still generate bitcoin transactions *and* namecoin transactions).

To update to Namecore it is necessary to redownload the blockchain?

The wallet format did not change, did it?

phelix wrote:To update to Namecore it is necessary to redownload the blockchain?

The wallet format did not change, did it?

I believe the blockchain format changed since 0.3.x, but I think Bitcoin Core automatically regenerates in the new format. To my knowledge the wallet format hasn't changed.

biolizard89 wrote:To my knowledge the wallet format hasn't changed.

I think phelix wasn't asking about the wallet format but about the blockchain data files in the datadir. The wallet format hasn't changed, but the blockchain database is completely different.
There is a fairly simple trick to re-use the blockchain data from an old client version, no matter if you are upgrading from a recent 0.3.80 Namecoin-Qt to namecore, or from a vintage 0.3.51 namecoind to namecore: run both the old client and the new namecore client on the same machine simultaneously, therefore the new client gets the blockchain data directly from the old client without generating any network traffic.

tl;dr: If you install namecore on top of the old client's data directory then you'll run into severe problems. However, you can force the new namecore client fetch the whole blockchain locally from the old client. I'm currently writing a wiki article with the instructions, and will post here as soon as I've finished editing it.