Talk:Namecoin/Archive 2

Talk page archive

A non-automated archive for this talk page can be found at Talk:Namecoin/Archive 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Carraway (talk • contribs) 14:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bug

User:Sudoquai removed a section about a bug, with the edit summary "Obsolete - bug was fixed and wikipedia is not the right place to mention every single bug to a software." I am restoring the information. The article does not list every bug, it mentions one significant bug about which an entire article was written, which seemed to conradict one of the premise of the software: that domain names could only be transferred by their owners. If it has been fixed, that's also relevant, but I could only find a reliable source saying fixes were being tested. If older pre-fixed clients can still operate and pose a vulnerability (I don't know one way or another), that's another reason the information should be retained. Agyle (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Agyle, i am going to clear the "Domain Stealing Bug" (was not easy to research):

15.10.2013: Bug discovered at Namecoin Block 139872 by libcoin (Michael Gronager from http://kraken.com)

15.10.2013: Thread opened by libcoin in http://namecoin.info Forum "Namecoin was stillborn, I had to switch off life-support" (http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1295):

15.10.2013, 3:51 pm Snailbrain suggests a solution http://namecoin.info Forum "Namecoin was stillborn, I had to switch off life-support" (http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1295):

...

Hash check is present in RPC command, but missing in the network code, so just need to copy-paste it to the right place. But we must somehow persuade people to upgrade.

I guess we should patch QT plus create a new fork of 3.50 with the fix (so people who are afraid of using the QT can still upgrade).

...

We should do the following:

1. choose block XXXXXX in the future at which the fix will be enforced (hard fork)

2. between block 139872 and XXXXXX allow bad transactions, but do not write them to nameindex

3. after block XXXXXX reject bad transactions (and blocks containing them)

4. Force rescan of nameindex (not sure how to do properly; deleting nameindex manually would do it, but need something automatic)

Item 2 ensures that the chain is not rejected, but bad name_updates are harmless.

After we do the patch, we need to contact Khal so he updates blockexplorer. Then we probably need to contact exchanges and pools and ask them to upgrade.

15.10.2013, 4:42 pm libcoin agrees to Snailbrains Bugfix Solution from 15.10.2013, 3:51 pm (http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1295)

Note: Snailbrain, Phelix and libcoin take part in this discussion (http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1295)

15.10.2013: Thread opened by libcoin in http://bitcointalk(.)org Forum "Namecoin was stillborn, I had to switch off life-support" (https://bitcointalk(.)org/index.php?topic=310954.0):

15.10.2013, 03:54:20 PM Snailbrain posts same solution in the BitcoinTalk Forum, earlier discussed and agreed from libcoin (https://bitcointalk(.)org/index.php?topic=310954.0)

16.10.2013: Edit 131016 by libcoin in http://bitcointalk(.)org Forum "Namecoin was stillborn, I had to switch off life-support" (https://bitcointalk(.)org/index.php?topic=310954.0):

A nice fix is currently being tested, so it seems like namecoin will be back in business. Cudos to the "snailbrain" and "phelix" for cooking it together and acting fast. So current status is - don't buy a domain from someone, and don't trust any important key-value pair in namecoin before the fix has been rolled out! - Will update once it is there, but could take days to deploy at miners.

Note: libcoin gives thanks to snailbrain and phelix for the bugfix, which is tested at the moment.

16.10.2013: Posting by namecoin.info in http://bitcointalk(.)org Forum "[NMC] Namecoin News Thread" (https://bitcointalk(.)org/index.php?topic=236340)

A severe bug has been found in the name verification code.

Do NOT buy names from anybody you don't trust 100% until it is fixed.

More info here: https://bitcointalk(.)org/index.php?topic=310954

Note: Fits to the post from libcoin from 16.10.2013: in http://bitcointalk(.)org Forum (https://bitcointalk(.)org/index.php?topic=310954.0).

15.10.2013 - 18.10.2013: 3 commits in the repository https://github.com/namecoinq/namecoinq/commits/vQ.3.72. The commit https://github.com/namecoinq/namecoinq/commit/d70d01ff77310d3755891cb43cb2700b553019f4 says:

Name bug fix.

Hard-fork is set to happen at block 150000 (~76 days from now). Before that bad name_* transactions are allowed, but won't be processed (i.e. won't be saved to name DB). After that they will be rejected, as well as blocks containing them.

At first start nameindexfull.dat will be rescanned (slow - be patient). If something goes wrong, delete it to force another rescan.

nameindexfull.dat is checked by version (rescanned if below 0.3.72).

28.10.2013: Coindesk article "Developers attempt to resurrect Namecoin after fundamental flaw discovered" (http://www.coindesk.com/namecoin-flaw-patch-needed/):

The state of the Namecoin fix was echoed by Gronager on the forum thread: ”Current status is – don’t buy a domain from someone, and don’t trust any important key-value pair in Namecoin before the fix has been rolled out! – Will update once it is there, but could take days to deploy at miners.”

Ultimately, it looks as if Namecoin will be brought back from the dead, with several patches being tested by the development team. But until it is ready, the cryptocurrency that backs the world’s alternative DNS system has to be regarded as being in quarantine.

Note: The CoinDesk article from 28.10.2013 didn't mention the 3 commits from 15.10.2013 - 18.10.2013. A updated version will be announced at 29.10.2013. The article from CoinDesk doesn't cover this anymore.

29.10.2013: Announcement by namecoin.info in http://bitcointalk(.)org Forum "[NMC] Namecoin News Thread" (https://bitcointalk(.)org/index.php?topic=236340):

...

Github: https://github.com/namecoinq/namecoinq/tree/vQ.3.72

...

This is what the fixed version will do:

* the name database is rebuild enforcing strict ownership of names

--> if you install this version you can once again trust the key-value pairs 100%

* to retain compatibility bad name operations are allowed in blocks for a while but are completely ignored

* after block 150k bad transactions are disallowed in blocks

--> this is a potential hard fork so everybody needs to have updated by then

Thanks to:

libcoin of kraken.com for finding and reporting the bug and also for helping with the fix.

thecoder and snailbrain for the fix.

khal and everyone else verifying, testing and supplying patches.

all donators and moral supporters.

...

Note: The mentioned repository https://github.com/namecoinq/namecoinq/tree/vQ.3.72 fits to the repository mentioned at 15.10.2013 - 18.10.2013. The user namecoin.info gives thanks to snailbrain and libcoin. http://namecoin.info is mentioned in this repository and Phelix and Snailbrain are moderators of http://forum.namecoin.info (green)

"Domain Stealing Bug" in a nutshell:

1) Existing domains are not affected, everything BEFORE block 139,872 (https://bitcointalk(.)org/index.php?topic=310954.0)

2) The Bugfix does the following: The Namecoin keypair database is rebuild enforcing strict ownership of names, malicious name_* transactions are allowed but ignored and will not be processed neither written Namecoin keypair database. https://github.com/namecoinq/namecoinq/commits/vQ.3.72 ; 15.10.2013-18.10.2013)

3) The majority has made an update to this bugfixed client (https://github.com/namecoinq/namecoinq/commits/vQ.3.72) (https://bitcointalk(.)org/index.php?topic=236340.msg3436752#msg3436752). Malicious name_* transactions are allowed but ignored and rejected from the Namecoin Network.

4) Conclusion from 2 - 3 An older client is NOT able to abuse this bug anymore and the "Domain Stealing Bug" is solved.

5) Major developers worked together in this bugfix are snailbrain, libcoin and phelix

Additional References:

• What is the Trouble With Namecoin? (http://blog.coincepts.org/trouble-with-namecoin/)
• Namecoin: Hardfork & Client Update (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LmG94KGeMw)

Sudoquai (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on the CoinDesk article, "the CoinDesk article from 28.10.2013 didn't mention the 3 commits from 15.10.2013 - 18.10.2013", the patches are presumably what they described as "several patches being tested by the development team", which is the basis in this article for "patches to address the flaw were tested that month".

Are you suggesting adding your conclusion (point #4) to this article, or removing any mention of the bug? If adding your conclusion, I think it constitutes original research (WP:OR), I didn't see a source for point #3 (specifically, "majority"), and I'm not sure that any of those would be considered reliable sources, though quoting GitHub comments would seem like the strongest contender. If removing any mention, I think its importance is indicated in the CoinDesk article, which is one of very few RS articles about NameCoin.

Per your original criticism of mentioning "every single bug", Namecoin had another critical though obscure SSL-related vulnerability known about for the past two months, which was finally fixed yesterday. I didn't include it here, because it wasn't covered in reliable sources, though CoinDesk has noted NameCoin's relatively (compared to bitcoin/dogecoin) inactive development. Agyle (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Any objections to my removing this section of the talk page? Indolering (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Indolering: No. (Perhaps even as copyvio...) (t) Josve05a (c) 21:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed this but someone reverted the change and asked that I create an archive. I don't know how to do that. --Indolering (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Coindesk reference

This edit removed a sentence that said "According to CoinDesk, Namecoin was not widely used as of May, 2013", and cited this Coindesk article, with an edit summary explaining: "removed CoinDesk citation, CoinDesk is citing some random page on a forum, that forum page is from 2012, and doesn't even mention Namecoin's usage. It's a bunch of random folks discussing Mining Namecoin. NOT encyclopedic!)"

I'm restoring it based on the following reasoning: While a Wikipedia guidelines require the use of reliable sources, it is accepted to rely on independent, published, secondary sources such as Coindesk that do not. Coindesk is relied on as a reliable source throughout this Wikipedia article. In this particular Coindesk article, they include a number of links where people can get more information about topics, but the article doesn't say "this is the sole source of this claim" or even that it was a source at all. I'd consider it likely that the author relied on multiple sources, including sites like bitcoincharts.com, blogs, forums, facebook, twitter, email, and conversations, none of which would be acceptable as Wikipedia sources. The same is true of journalists at The New York Times and elsewhere. Agyle (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I do think you have a personal vendetta as I implied earlier. Maybe at me, or maybe at Namecoin. You are being completely biased and are destroying this article. You know nothing about Namecoin. The article you're defending is a year old. Great advances in the use of Namecoin for its DNS qualities have come out since then. You even cited that yourself (Bitcoin magazine on FreeSpeechMe.)

More importantly, you are such a 'by the letter of the law" boy scout / cop on Wikipedia that you are making things worse. This is going to turn into an unneeded edit war. I'd suggest you

1. Read the blurb referenced in CoinBase, note the date, then go read the much more recent article you cited from Bitcoin magazine, and do a Google search on Namecoin DNS. There's been a slow explosion in Namecoin DNS in the past few months. Just because the old media hasn't covered it yet doesn't mean it's not true. Old media is HORRIBLY slow at covering Cryptos.

You are defending the citing of a poorly sourced article for a year ago. I'm not arguing that Namecoin has gone mainstream, but you're playing fast and shitty with the rules to serve your own agendas by letting that poor citation pass, when you're such a sticker with other things you delete on Wikipedia.

2. Read the b.s. on the forum that CoinBase cites. IT IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED. And it's nobody with any authority. It's a bunch of user names on a forum (hey! kind of like you on Wikipedia!)

3. Since you edit a lot about crypto currencies, you should realize how truly long one year is in the life of a crypto, and you're citing something poorly sourced from a year ago that is no longer true.

4. Don't make assumptions that a writer for something you've heard of "did their research."

5. You REALLY should read the amazing 2004 article "The Great Failure of Wikipedia" by Jason Scott. http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808

It's people EXACTLY like you who drove him off Wikipedia. He was a great contributor very early on. You won't drive me off Wikipedia, I've been making useful edits since 2007. But you really ought to read that article. You fall squarely between the "content twiddler" group and "procedural whackjobs" Jason Scott describes in this paragraph:

"This is what the inherent failure of wikipedia is. It’s that there’s a small set of content generators, a massive amount of wonks and twiddlers, and then a heaping amount of procedural whackjobs. And the mass of twiddlers and procedural whackjobs means that the content generators stop being so and have to become content defenders."

Agyle, I hereby bestow upon you The Barnstar of Procedural Twiddling. ElizaBarrington (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:ElizaBarrington, I'm not going to debate claims of bias or other personal characterizations.

Regarding this issue, Coindesk does not cite the forum as a reference; it is just a link in the article. I'm not assuming the article is accurate; my comment about the author's sources is admittedly purely a guess, and the article's information may be fabricated, as with any article. However, Coindesk is quite commonly accepted in cryptocurrency articles as a reliable source. There's only one source supporting this statement, and it is indeed old in a fast-moving field, but both the source and the date are explicitly attributed in the body of the article.

Agyle (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Agyle, I am going to remove the sentence "According to CoinDesk, Namecoin was not widely used as of May, 2013" of the following reasons:

 1) Explanation of Edit inside by ElizaBarrington
 2) Less the emotional argumentation, the core arguments of 1-4 by ElizaBarrington (mentionable that CoinBase is not the same source as CoinDesk, i suppose this is a mistake)
 3) It's not relevant for the History of Namecoin to mention, that it was not widely used at the beginning (like many other innovative products like the car, computer, internet and ICANN DNS)

Sudoquai (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I already answered #1 & #2. Per #3, I took the comment to mean relative to other cryptocurrencies; Namecoin had been released two years prior to CoinDesk's assessment. But however you take it, I think its usage at any point would be relevant to encyclopedic understanding; it's unfortunate that there's only one RS with a one-time snapshot on this. Noting its unpopularity in an RS is kind of a catch-22, as there is little RS coverage of Namecoin because it's unpopular, relative to bitcoin or dogecoin. However, while I think coverage of its reception is important to the subject, there does seem to be a 2-to-1 consensus against relying on CoinDesk as a reliable source for this. Agyle (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the bulk of the article to introduce Namecoin's use cases, explain Namecoin records and namespaces, and differences from Bitcoin. This all relies on primary sources and largely avoids the debate above, While some iffy citations may remain, the bulk of the article no longer relies on these citation. Would anyone object to A: removal of this discussion and B: removal of the multiple issues box citing issues with sources? Indolering (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Change to request to move section to archive. --Indolering (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikileaks coverage, removal, and reversion of removal

I removed some unsourced claims about Wikileaks, which were reverted by User: Indolering in this edit, with the edit comment "Namecoin was explicitly based on Aaron Swartz's paper, endorsed by name in Wikileaks via twitter later that same month." Afterwards Intolering added a sentence "Julian Assange later formally endorsed .bit and the Namecoin project", citing a Tweet from WikiLeaks that says "Namecoin and Bitcoin will be revolutionary is.gd/8zKOTT see "Orwell's Dictum" is.gd/2hsOWh".

I think the amount of coverage spent on Wikileaks, about a third of the Namecoin article, is undue weight (see WP:UNDUE). However, more significantly, the claims are not verifiable with any references. While I'm guessing that in the long quotation, Assange was talking about Namecoin, guessing doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements (see WP:V).

I understand where you are coming from Agyle, Assange's wording is very clumsy. A "Bitcoin replacement for DNS" that "is not a DNS system" is an oxymoron and we are left guessing exactly what he means by that. To someone familiar with these systems it is "obvious" but that just isn't good enough. Indolering (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Logo

---

BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA512

I've corrected the logo to use the official Namecoin logo, as can be seen on the official Namecoin website: namecoin.org.

An account by the name of "Namecoin" (which is not an allowed username) reverted these changes with the comment,

"Logo - was removed together with the video, which has encyclopedic charakter and seems to be widely used by the Namecoin community in the Internet. Please refrain from using phrases like "correct"."

This is patently false. The logo is the product of a person whom goes by the name of Sudo and it was never adopted by the Namecoin project.

Sudo has spammed several outside contributors (including the author of the Namecoin video) and exchanges into using the logo and we are just now getting around to reversing these images. The only places it has been used are on social media accounts Sudo controls that have also been repudiated by the project.

The blue N logos are the *correct* and *current* logos. Do not revert these changes.

–Indolering, official developer.

---

BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUNDn6AAoJEPATFzDlwy7SI+UP/iRfgjXKT8KOE923Eih2QmZB JY+rtOcXqy9zOfdzq1p/sz4Xq7u0c8/IuprYbgxxZTIUPYQcu1Iw78voIQJWZkdo JhyNiVcbsjw676qwj052ZpreNipc1bPvU6YszpppvOFdS/wf3DOJBOH9oGvVA1tW 61rTf7vDJUvc2K+w6iSLUt6OBVEu41wuMGZtmRA50a0LaYz1M3bCm8qS/kOv7oPw LuZ6krdpk+TMaHX1sUu4aOXD3ahhD/PseBbZfSHpnoH2LvX9ql28QqTMitr+vzaG B2ob9N/QjDPJRonrqa1Z48hJrhQCgCAdHwdI3Mf0CaXGQlOH3QGG3sCHsUEwCIn0 TDM6yK/KJURYGscwN81xuaavHSHmT7b+0M36dTZEk3inHPRA4O7qwbMwzhkZbE6g 0P85NUckXSakXh+ktcowU42FqocxjG2se/ZuDdcxo6yhtY10QfkHzcEKy4hx8YXb SSoz0jVyknIx/J0IMObV1zo2a7ln1HW9A+lVcMMwq/jtZeog33wcZD95k8CwBRPZ mb+0Yp+PNNrbXRbkt8jJ/IvQV6JMEPYsziS4PMdBr/0kMmoCeUbTj/f2Na9DVWnv VV4NjhJO3kZvXeekxeVjRsxA1fkPgJznsFmeHF/1+LvUhuSJy4hG7SCblKq/5YL6 jHyY6UtohPP4eBd4ChGF =OLWd

---

END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Indolering (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a developer of Namecoin; I just wanted to confirm that Indolering is correct; the blue logo currently in use at namecoin.info (which namecoin.org redirects to) is the only current official logo; the purple logo designed by Sudo has never been an official logo in any capacity.

Cheers, -Jeremy Rand

Biolizard89 (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I am the designer of the original namecoin logo, I created it for a bounty located here: namecoin forum post (as artisbigshirts). The logo in this article appears to be based upon my own. A consensus was reached for Namecoin's logo here:[1] Thanks

Dwda (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | Dwda (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Logo deletion request

Please be aware that many Namecoin logos have been nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons - commons:Commons:Deletion requests/False Namecoin Logos. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

On the 'History' section

Two remarks about the 'History' section: Firstly, while OneName has been marketed more aggressively, they were not the first (or only) to use Namecoin with online identities. The 'id/' namespace has been mentioned on the old Namecoin wiki for a long time. Also there is NameID, which predates OneName.

Secondly, I'm quite active in the community (actually the current main developer). I've never before heard about Monegraph. Besides the CoinDesk article and their website, I can't really find much about them. Is this really a noteworthy addition? There were also lots of other things discussed and done with Namecoin (Bitmessage integration, OpenBazaar, Open Transactions, general-purpose timestamping) that are not mentioned (nor should all of them be mentioned).

Are there any objections to addressing these? Note that NameID is my own project, so maybe it would be better for someone else to do the changes (who can be fully objective). Domob (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Namecoin. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://veritas.maximilianeum.ch/bitcoin/irc/logs/2010/11/14#l1150
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://veritas.maximilianeum.ch/bitcoin/irc/logs/2010/11/15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Namecoin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812210115/http://coinjoint.info/namecoin-next-generation-domain-name-system/ to http://coinjoint.info/namecoin-next-generation-domain-name-system/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dot-bit.org/Messaging_System

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It's dead

See here. It probably never was alive. That's not a reliable source, but are there any reliable sources on this? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Come on, don't troll here, that Namecoin is not user friendly doesn't mean it's dead. Namecoin is the coin with 2nd highest hashrate, higher than bch or bsv, stop with the FUD. Source https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/difficulty-hashrate-btc-bch-bsv-nmc.html#6m

Also NO mining pool has mayority hashrate so that should be deleted!. Source: https://twitter.com/NamecoinDNS/status/1037422550790430720

Also merged mining was invented by Satoshi Source: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/532/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samurai4321 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Neither of these comments have anything to do with what Smallbones said, and none of these sources are reliable sources. Dr-Bracket (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference: my sources cite facts that can be checked independently, if a investigative journalist were to take the effort, (probably with the help of a computer guy). Cointelegraph is just another "coin media" website that can't be trusted, there's a interview with a guy notable for having a podcast, this is the same as putting Onename guy Muneeb Ali as source, just guys that leaved NMC to do their own altcoin that can make money for them. No NMC developer has monetary benefit in promoting NMC since there is no company, no coin premine, no ICO, no token sale, no nothing, just additional tokens for BTC miners.Samurai4321 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The requirement for reliable sources checks WP:N, which is the bigger question asked here. Dr-Bracket (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Source check: mostly terrible

I just did a reference check. This is mostly cited to crypto blogs, primary sources and forum pages. There's literally one RS, one ICANN draft report (not even final), one thesis about Namecoin, one paper showing Namecoin is a failure.

Is there anything that passes RS muster about Namecoin, even historically?

Is there any reason not to cull this article to the few actual sources? - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's been a week; culled to actual sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Two paragraphs in The New Yorker from 2013. Pajeet 💩 05:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The first altcoin!

I just found out Namecoin was the first altcoin! Is there an RS that says this? There's this from a crypto site, which I'm now wishing was in a RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's a Wired story claiming Namecoin was "one of the first", but unfortunately I wasn't able to find anything better than that. Good find though! I'll keep my eyes peeled. Dr-Bracket (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

My next book will be on terrible ICOs, so I'm researching early ICOs, so I'm skimming Bitcointalk's altcoin board from the start ... discovering all sorts of weird historical stuff. You know the thing where you read 10k words and get 0 to 0.5 of a sentence from it, if that? That. Sadly I'm not famous enough to constitute a RS myself yet - David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Oof yeah that blows. Good luck with your ongoing research! I'll stick to writing Wikipedia articles and getting into school :) Dr-Bracket (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't. Tonal Bitcoin was ~3 months earlier. --Luke-Jr (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Tonal Bitcoin seems to be an actual Bitcoin implementation, not an altcoin of its own. Dr-Bracket (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It uses the same blockchain as [decimal] Bitcoin, but it has different units. Basically, it's an altcoin done right. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

so, not an altcoin at all then, just pull requests no-one else took on? The Bitcoin wiki says "a representation of the Bitcoin system aimed toward people who prefer the Tonal number system" - was there ever a second user? - David Gerard (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Just found a somewhat usable source, Business Insider: [2] - David Gerard (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Unsupported defamatory claim in article

This Wikipedia article says: ".bit domains have long been used to host malware.[6] In July 2019, Namecoin's .bit namespace was dropped from OpenNIC. OpenNIC cited rampant abuse of .bit domains for purposes of malware and child pornography." The claim about malware abuse is supported by the source, but not the claim about CP. The cited ZDNet article explains that the OpenNIC developers were worried about it being used for purposes of child pornography, but does not support the claim of "rampant abuse of .bit domains" for the purpose. The article goes on to quote a representative of the OpenNIC team who wrote "I'm not saying this HAS happened, just that it is worth considering as a worst-case scenario." So, whoever added this claim very openly misrepresented the source and it needs to be ammended. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Are there actual .bit domains existing today?

The .bit article redirects to this article and it made me curious if domains with .bit TLD actually exist or is it still a "hypothetical" concept as of 2021? Azuresky Voight (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Late answer, but better now than never: There are only very rare unic .bit domains online at the moment, perhaps around 10 websites providing some real content, especially, after the cooperation with the OpenNIC project was cancelled. At the newly added reference you can see them in action. Step by step this blockchain DNS will get more practical use cases, especially in regions which need to get independent from regulated DNS networks. 212.95.5.229 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The added namecoin.pro links are spam and not relevant

In edits by User:212.95.5.229, links to namecoin.pro have been added. I believe the addition of these links should be reverted, for the following reasons:

• the site is not a reliable source as per WP:RS, because it is an utterly marginal website, and so the two references to it should be taken out
  • according to archive.org, it first had content two days ago, (https://web.archive.org/web/20210908193232/https://namecoin.pro/SitePages/Namecoin%20has%20impact.aspx)
  • it doesn't have any alexa rank (https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/namecoin.pro)
  • no sites other than this wikipedia page link to it
• namecoin.pro is not a suitable external link as per WP:FANSITE:
  • the site is not an official page of the article's subject (the imprint lists one "Uwe Martens", who is not a contributor to or otherwise involved with Namecoin)
  • the site does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it did become a featured article
  • the purpose of the link is seems limited to the promotion of this website

Because this concerns a dispute between IP editors which may come and go, I think it would be appropriate to try and get a third opinion, so I will notify a neutral party.

203.210.102.68 (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Clearly very questionable. I've reverted the new URL and put the article under extended confirmed protection, under WP:GS/CRYPTO. The new source shouldn't be used unless and until there's evidence that this new URL is any sort of official site - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard, just as a comment: When someone accuses another developer of being "...not a contributor to or otherwise involved with Namecoin", it can only be someone "defending" their own territory and their old and very outdated website at namecoin.org, which doesn't provide any usefull information. One only has to enter the well-known Telegram communities and be regularly confronted with the absolutely basic questions of how to register .bit domains and so on after Jeremy Rand, the sole content creator of namecoin.org, single-handedly decided to shut down the original Namecoin wiki without consulting a single other contributor before! What is mentioned in the WP article has not been "the official website" for a long time, but only the personal website of Jeremy Rand, whose only "community" consists of the IRC channel on Libera Chat with just around 14 members. In contrast, namecoin.pro is supported by a large community on Telegram with more than 1000 members in several groups, as linked in the imprint. In contrast, namecoin.pro provides binaries from the official GitHub repository with the adequate description and instructions. The technological content of namecoin.pro exceeds the content of the poor WP article by far and can clearly be used as a reference for the issues in question, which has been mentioned in a large "issue box" for over 6 years now. Defaming another Namecoin coder as "not a contributor to or otherwise involved with Namecoin" also clearly seems to be a conflict of interest just of the OP of this talk page section, as namecoin.pro, without doubt in contrast to namecoin.org, provides working browser add-ons to resolve blockchain domains, means to make Namecoin finally practically usable after more than 10 years of deep sleep. It has to be mentioned here again that Namecoin is not backed by any company or organization, there is not even a whitepaper and namecoin.org has never published any such paper, so there doesn't exist any "official" entity as Namecoin is a pure community project with equal contributors. namecoin.org only provides ridiculous fantasy positions like "Chief Namecoin Scientist", "Lead Application Engineer" and other jokes. I mean, namecoin.pro could offer the same fantasy positions, but of course it doesn't. The relevant threads on Bitcointalk might be of interest here, where you can read that Namecoin is more or less considered dead, and that needs to be changed! Maybe you should reconsider your decision, else the WP article will remain in its poor condition and nobody, me including, will take care about it, like in the past 6 years! Just like a coder and real community website doesn't care about backlinks from Wikipedia or page rank at Alexa. It only provides downloads and in-depth knowledge about the underlying technology, which could enrich Wikipedia and which namecoin.org doesn't. Just compare the sources provided... Best regards, 213.142.97.102 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI see section Violation of WP:UNINVOLVED on AN (perma). 46.125.249.82 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Undeclared donation to Namecoin contributors

I propose to implement a new section in the article about the funders of the Namecoin project. There's given always a false impression that all code contributions were done by volunteers just as a favor to the community, but this is not the case. It's rather about good money. In this case, a paltry amount of $2 million USD of undeclared donations in February 2020. That didn't stop the contributors from applying again for a €50,000 donation from the European Commission's pots in 2021. This story will finally come to an end, see the related and very nice threads via Google search (or just the Namecoin channel on Telegram) with some comments about what's going on at Wikipedia. 213.142.97.53 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Website link outdated (redirect)

Hi, Namecoin developer here. The "Website" URL in this article ( https://namecoin.org/ without a leading www) is outdated; that URL now redirects to https://www.namecoin.org/ (with the leading www). I won't make the edit myself since I have a conflict of interest, but it would be appreciated if a neutral party can update the URL in this article accordingly. JeremyRand (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done - hako9 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Seems innocuous? - hako9 (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it does in fact redirect there! - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Why cite a draft ICANN report?

Hi, Namecoin developer here. The article cites a draft ICANN report. It's not clear to me why this draft report was used as a source, since the final version of that ICANN report contains essentially identical text with respect to Namecoin. (Ctrl-F for "Namecoin" yielded 3 hits in each PDF, and by eye all 3 hits look identical between the two PDF's.) I would suggest that the final report be cited instead (and the wording of the article be slightly changed to not say it's a draft report). I won't make the edit myself since I have a conflict of interest, but it would be greatly appreciated if a neutral party can evaluate this suggestion and make edits as deemed appropriate. JeremyRand (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Since you criticized the usage of this draft report, perhaps you would find this suggestion to be of interest? JeremyRand (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done @JeremyRand: I changed the link to the new report and renamed the reference, I saw your post and agree that they appear to be the same references in the draft and the final. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Secondary source on OpenNIC

Hi, Namecoin developer here. The article states "Namecoin developer Jeremy Rand welcomed the move, thanking OpenNIC and describing it as the "right decision"." and cites two primary sources (both on Namecoin's website). Since secondary sources are generally preferable, I would suggest adding this secondary source for that claim. (The author of that article interviewed me for the article.) I have no particular objection to leaving the two existing sources there. I won't make the edit myself since I have a conflict of interest, but it would be appreciated if a neutral party can evaluate the suggested secondary source and make edits as appropriate. JeremyRand (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've implemented this request. It seems a little redundant because the secondary source doesn't really validate the claim, instead just pointing to one of the two aforementioned primary sources. That being said, I don't think it hurts so I've gone through and added it. RFZYNSPY ^talk 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Address format outdated

Hi, Namecoin developer here. The "Addresses" section says "Payments and records in the Namecoin network are made to addresses, which are Base58-encoded hashes of users' public keys. They are strings of 33 numbers and letters which begin with the letter N or M." This unsourced text is outdated information, as it only is accurate for the old-style P2PKH address type. The newer Bech32 and P2SH address types do not follow this pattern. Citation (unfortunately a primary source) is here. That said, while it would be fine with me if this section is corrected, it is not clear to me why the address format is even considered notable enough to be in the article. The articles on Bitcoin and Litecoin do not contain any similarly detailed description. So it would also be fine with me if the description of the address format is simply removed from the article. I won't make either edit myself since I have a conflict of interest, but it would be appreciated if a neutral party can evaluate the notability of that text, and either delete or amend it as deemed appropriate. I'm happy to provide more detailed text about the current address format if you want to amend the text but aren't sure of ideal wording. JeremyRand (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2022

Change Satoshi0x (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)