Namecoin Forum

This forum is for Namecoin.

For Solidcoin, try the forum at: http://solidcointalk.org/

vinced wrote:Lets first see how we do on merged mining adoption.

Yea, probably best to do 1 thing at a time.

In the meantime, popcorn at the ready as [solid,ix,i0]coin diff algo's play out.

The planned roll-out of merged mining is great. But it's not enough. Adoption of merged mining is uncertain. The *rate* of pools adopting merged mining is uncertain. It could be a long while after the roll-out before enough pools get on board to have any effect on the namecoin network at all. Time t...

But it won't take long at all, as long as it takes for the next block to be solved and assuming the person trying to view it after that has the whole block chain downloaded. And assuming this is an already registered name and you're just doing an update, then yes just 1 block. But if it's totally n...

Imagine that deepbit.net decides to take us up on the mergined mining ... without telling the miners (Who would know right? I'm not actually suggesting he would..) Wouldn't it be possible to create a 'merged mining tracking' service? If there is something unique in the merged-mined blocks (extended...

I'm a bit confused. Are you worried about a Namecoin price drop, or worried about the effect on the namecoin network for its intended purpose of name registrations and updates?

I'm only concerned with the later.

Let's make some assumptions: - the namecoin network upgrade to a new merged mining codebase will be a success - merged mining will work, with namecoin aux'ing off parent chain bitcoin - enough pools implement merged mining to have a continued effect on the namecoin network Result? - namecoin network...

The result is less email and more twitter, but the pricing is considerably more attractive. Yup, while twitter has a 140 character text limit, and SMS has a 160 character text limit, a namecoin messaging system would have a 1023 character limit. (and maybe a bit less, if space is needed for JSON or...

http://testnet.explorer.dot-bit.org/ is looking good!

Would it be possible to add a 'view Raw block' function? That'll make it easier for everyone to examine all the nitty-gritty of the generated mergedmined blocks.

Looks like things are going well with the testing so far. Merged-mining-testnet is up about 40 blocks more then "old" testnet

One bootstrapping suggestion: don't use connect, use addnode: