phelix, this is your graph right?
is this correct? what is going on lately?
# of names
Re: # of names
Is it d/ names or may it be some other namespace?phelix wrote:I noticed it, too. Looks like a squatter running crazy... sigh.
BTC: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Re: # of names
Namespace distribution as of blockheight=228301 (data obtained from name_scan, i.e. contains both newly created and updated names):domob wrote:Is it d/ names or may it be some other namespace?
Code: Select all
Last 36000 blocks: Last 12000 blocks:
509122 d 407789 d
41707 ***EXPIRED*** 136116 (older than 12000 blocks)
26417 u 41707 ***EXPIRED***
7346 i 6633 u
5065 id 2873 i
1247 ***EMPTY NAMESPACE*** 739 id
923 m 552 n
684 a 552 m
662 o 552 e
661 k 551 j
661 f 551 f
661 c 551 b
661 b 551 a
660 n 550 h
660 l 550 g
660 j 549 k
660 h 208 l
660 g 101 p
660 e 98 ***EMPTY NAMESPACE***
550 coin 89 c
246 p 50 tor
148 ip 42 bit.co.in
98 bit.co.in 36 x
91 tor 19 poa
70 app 10 dd
54 i2p 4 s
50 s
40 x
40 r
39 z
39 y
39 w
39 v
39 t
39 8
38 q
38 7
38 5
38 4
38 3
38 2
38 1
37 9
37 6
36 0
32 ip6
25 exchange
24 poa
24 dd
15 com
10 monegraph
6 mdw
5 wot
5 email
5 is
5 ds
Re: # of names
Don't know whether it is a squatter or not but to give you some historical perspective, when the US congress wanted to develop cross-continential railroads, they allocated development zones (think real estate) in alternate blocks on either side of the line (think chequerboard). This discouraged monopolising any single geological confluence as the open space was always a public "commons" that could be released in the future. If you look at a lot of economic systems including real-estate, some of their public objectives was to encourage development use and not just hoarding (eg trust rule against perpetuality, patent increasing fees to force unviable patents into public domain, etc). So there may be a public policy objective in having a "decay" function where unused domains get charged a minor administrative "tax" for being inactive for a increasing periods (ie recognised by others).
Dr. Lawrence Lau
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drllau
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drllau
-
- Posts: 2001
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
- os: linux
Re: # of names
Well, an unused domain looks just like an actively used domain according to blockchain validation rules. That said, increasing renewal fees a lot (at least 1 USD per year) would have a superficially similar effect, in the sense that it would become prohibitively expensive to own huge numbers of domains that aren't generating any revenue or serving the owner any purpose. This would also make certain attacks involving evil miners much more expensive to pull off.drllau wrote:Don't know whether it is a squatter or not but to give you some historical perspective, when the US congress wanted to develop cross-continential railroads, they allocated development zones (think real estate) in alternate blocks on either side of the line (think chequerboard). This discouraged monopolising any single geological confluence as the open space was always a public "commons" that could be released in the future. If you look at a lot of economic systems including real-estate, some of their public objectives was to encourage development use and not just hoarding (eg trust rule against perpetuality, patent increasing fees to force unviable patents into public domain, etc). So there may be a public policy objective in having a "decay" function where unused domains get charged a minor administrative "tax" for being inactive for a increasing periods (ie recognised by others).
Re: # of names
Unfortunately this is one of those mutually agreed policies ... like the TCP/IP backoff function, it needs to be universally implemented otherwise the squatters to gravitate to the rogue authority. You also want some diversity, different period, thresholds or backoff functions to encourage innovative use of the namecoin domain. The problem with assuming everyone is an independent is making a mistake that they also act like an adult always.biolizard89 wrote: Well, an unused domain looks just like an actively used domain according to blockchain validation rules. That said, increasing renewal fees a lot (at least 1 USD per year) would have a superficially similar effect, in the sense that it would become prohibitively expensive to own huge numbers of domains that aren't generating any revenue or serving the owner any purpose. This would also make certain attacks involving evil miners much more expensive to pull off.
It is also partly social peer pressure. When email was contained within campus, you have the older cohort of students give the cluebat to newbies on proper netiquette ... once it escaped the confines of a collegial mutual respect, commercial spammers abused the mailhost, effectively externalising their costs onto the common infrastructure and backbone traffic charges. And if you read some of the early history, the network operators were complicit in encouraging "usage" which they could bill. Whilst it is too much to expect human nature to change in a short decade or two, at least the mistakes of the past need not be repeated in anticipating or mitigating negative side effects.
Dr. Lawrence Lau
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drllau
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drllau