bit/ to .bit

[virtual_master]

How about resolving the bit/ namespace to .bit domain ?
Why:
- bit/ -> .bit more logical and easier to understand then d/ -> .bit
- no hardfork is necessary(at network level) at all, just updated resolver
- temporary solved the problem with the squatters without problems, they keep their d/ namespace registrations with the same price as until now

bit/ registrations/updates should be still changed earlier or later for higher price otherwise it could be shifted again toward a new namespace even without majority agreement as it is only an updated downloadable resolver needed for the new namespace

[domob]

IMHO, this is a bad idea. It shakes the trust someone may have in the Namecoin system, since if we go and change the .bit semantics once, who knows if we change it again whenever some agency wants to "change" the owner of, say, wikileaks.bit? No-one should ever be interested again in reserving a domain name if we do this.

Also, do you really think this would help with squatting? I don't think so. If as many bit/ names are taken as d/ names are now, will you propose to switch to yet another namespace?

[biolizard89]

IMHO, this is a bad idea. It shakes the trust someone may have in the Namecoin system, since if we go and change the .bit semantics once, who knows if we change it again whenever some agency wants to "change" the owner of, say, wikileaks.bit? No-one should ever be interested again in reserving a domain name if we do this.

Also, do you really think this would help with squatting? I don't think so. If as many bit/ names are taken as d/ names are now, will you propose to switch to yet another namespace?

I agree with domob. Also, d/ is a more usefully meaningful namespace, because if by some crazy chance ICANN awards .bit to someone, we can switch to a different TLD without disrupting the blockchain. (This is certainly unlikely.)

[virtual_master]

I agree with domob. Also, d/ is a more usefully meaningful namespace, because if by some crazy chance ICANN awards .bit to someone, we can switch to a different TLD without disrupting the blockchain. (This is certainly unlikely.)

This is a good argument but I was thinking about using a second general purpose Namecoin domain which could be .d .
They could be used with different fee or/and expiration time.
In this case would be more logical to use bit/ -> .bit and d/ -> .d instead of d/ -> bit. and bit/ -> .d .

[biolizard89]

I agree with domob. Also, d/ is a more usefully meaningful namespace, because if by some crazy chance ICANN awards .bit to someone, we can switch to a different TLD without disrupting the blockchain. (This is certainly unlikely.)

This is a good argument but I was thinking about using a second general purpose Namecoin domain which could be .d .
They could be used with different fee or/and expiration time.
In this case would be more logical to use bit/ -> .bit and d/ -> .d instead of d/ -> bit. and bit/ -> .d .

Fees and expire time are namespace-agnostic in Namecoin; namecoind doesn't know what namespaces are. Why would we want to complicate the name/value storage system with those rules?

[virtual_master]

This is a good argument but I was thinking about using a second general purpose Namecoin domain which could be .d .
They could be used with different fee or/and expiration time.
In this case would be more logical to use bit/ -> .bit and d/ -> .d instead of d/ -> bit. and bit/ -> .d .

Fees and expire time are namespace-agnostic in Namecoin; namecoind doesn't know what namespaces are.

This is valid by the actual namecoind but not necessary for the future.

Why would we want to complicate the name/value storage system with those rules?

Because different namespaces have different properties. Best example d/ and id/.
We already have a couple of threads discussing about different rules for different namespaces.
And if we implement different rules for different purpose namespaces then we can also have different purpose domain namespaces. It can be done with the same hardfork.

However I must recognize that having a unique namespace rule has also its advantages. Making a namespace more expensive then other could shift some people reimplementing the same feature for a cheaper namespace. To counterbalance this we could make so that fee/time to be always the same.

Why to have different domain namespaces ?
- One could serve for long term domain names in an own namespace - for ex bit/ -> .bit - 2.5 year exp time 0.1 NMC with priority resolving to plain IP.
The id/ namespace could have the same fee and expiration structure. This would have a standard censorship resistance and more stability.
- Another could be optimized more for censorship escaping purpose where the provider intends to change more frequently his resolving address - for ex. d/ -> .d 1/2 year exp. time and 0.02 NMC fee and resolving priority to hidden addresses(like Tor and I2P).

The system would serve more flexible different purposes but would cost the same NMC fee/year so it wouldn't be any interest from this point of view to shift to a new namespace from an established one.
(Of course short names fees could be multiplied with the corresponding factor.)