Namecoin Forum

Is there any work on-going to achieve this?

I can help with building/testing/debugging and probably some juicy NMC bounty.

moa wrote:Is there any work on-going to achieve this?

I can help with building/testing/debugging and probably some juicy NMC bounty.

I would love to see this happen. Despite the problems in the Bitcoin-Qt GUI, it's still a quite commonly used GUI in the Bitcoin world, and therefore I think it makes sense for it to have first-class support for Namecoin's naming. My guess is that it wouldn't be a hard task for a C++ coder, either, although I don't have much familiarity with the Qt GUI changes that have happened in Bitcoin since then. (I'm not comfortable enough in that codebase to do it though.)

moa wrote:I can help with building/testing/debugging and probably some juicy NMC bounty.

Also have a look at phelix' nameGUI activities.

Actually I don't mind if we had two GUIs at our disposal. One "official" Qt reference GUI, and another one more flexible and easily extensible Python RPC GUI.

cassini wrote:

moa wrote:I can help with building/testing/debugging and probably some juicy NMC bounty.

Also have a look at phelix' nameGUI activities.

Actually I don't mind if we had two GUIs at our disposal. One "official" Qt reference GUI, and another one more flexible and easily extensible Python RPC GUI.

I don't think nameGUI is anywhere near an 'official' GUI and shouldn't be presented as such. It is bad idea for a number of reasons but maybe a fun toy project for phelix to play around with Python on windows.

moa wrote:

cassini wrote:

moa wrote:I can help with building/testing/debugging and probably some juicy NMC bounty.

Also have a look at phelix' nameGUI activities.

Actually I don't mind if we had two GUIs at our disposal. One "official" Qt reference GUI, and another one more flexible and easily extensible Python RPC GUI.

I don't think nameGUI is anywhere near an 'official' GUI and shouldn't be presented as such. It is bad idea for a number of reasons but maybe a fun toy project for phelix to play around with Python on windows.

I personally think requiring the end user to use a different wallet GUI for name operations is a usability nightmare. I think directly integrating with existing wallet GUI's (e.g. Namecoin-Qt, Armory, etc.) is a much better experience for end users. I do wish that Bitcoin Core had a better separation between GUI and core code, but that's not our mess to clean up.

@moa may I ask what reasons you dislike Phelix's nameGUI? Curious how much your analysis overlaps/differs with mine.

I certainly would not mind having name operations support in Namecoin Core Qt. Obviously a single integrated GUI gives best usability. the name management tab is more complicated than one might expect though (e.g. name_firstupdate saving the name_update fee). Besides making it work I *think* domob is not so keen on maintaining it with Bitcoin patches incoming.

It was my impression we would not get name support in the Qt GUI anytime soon so I started nameGui. The separation to other features is quite good unless coin control for names is considered. I don't think any of the other options offer coin control so that does not count.

On the pro side, let me tell you that the Python RPC implementation is way simpler and more flexible. Already now there are functions not available in Qt and I am certain if we continue working on it, it will soon offer features giving it a whole new quality. e.g. atomic name trading integration, data input support. Also there are synergies with NMControl due to shared code in data input and processing.

One good solution would be to implement also a (better) wallet part - Bitcoin could also benefit from this - but also a ton of work.

moa wrote:Is there any work on-going to achieve this?

I can help with building/testing/debugging and probably some juicy NMC bounty.

Hi moa,

Some people were wondering how much of a bounty you'd be willing to put up for this. Any chance you could specify this?

Thanks.

biolizard89 wrote:

moa wrote:Is there any work on-going to achieve this?

I can help with building/testing/debugging and probably some juicy NMC bounty.

Hi moa,

Some people were wondering how much of a bounty you'd be willing to put up for this. Any chance you could specify this?

Thanks.

+1

Also I want to repeat here: The issue larger than the initial implementation is maintenance: keeping in sync with Bitcoin downstream. Without ensuring maintenance up front this will more or less immediately break.

phelix wrote:

biolizard89 wrote:

moa wrote:Is there any work on-going to achieve this?

I can help with building/testing/debugging and probably some juicy NMC bounty.

Hi moa,

Some people were wondering how much of a bounty you'd be willing to put up for this. Any chance you could specify this?

Thanks.

+1

Also I want to repeat here: The issue larger than the initial implementation is maintenance: keeping in sync with Bitcoin downstream. Without ensuring maintenance up front this will more or less immediately break.

Does that mean the bounty could be broken in several parts (say 50% when done, 25% after 6 months of maintenance, and 25% for the 2nd 6 months), or that you think that it's better to have a separate GUI (which sounds reasonable)?

somename wrote:

phelix wrote:

biolizard89 wrote:

moa wrote:Is there any work on-going to achieve this?

I can help with building/testing/debugging and probably some juicy NMC bounty.

Hi moa,

Some people were wondering how much of a bounty you'd be willing to put up for this. Any chance you could specify this?

Thanks.

+1

Also I want to repeat here: The issue larger than the initial implementation is maintenance: keeping in sync with Bitcoin downstream. Without ensuring maintenance up front this will more or less immediately break.

Does that mean the bounty could be broken in several parts (say 50% when done, 25% after 6 months of maintenance, and 25% for the 2nd 6 months),

That would help but what would happen then?

or that you think that it's better to have a separate GUI (which sounds reasonable)?

The separate GUI has some disadvantages (mostly user experience) and some advantages. I just don't see how the alternative can work in the long run.