I believe so, but need people to test/feedback to fix any issues.. it compiles in mingw in windows

_______

if the qt is completed soon (with full nmc commands) + NMC goes on mtgox (as is the rumour for mid June?) .. this may wake up some NMC users .. maybe


I think changing the fees need to be thought about thoroughly (after the above?)...

Need to reduce spam, but also think about NMC's potential value in the future:

What makes a coin Valuable?

Hash Rate(security)? - NMC is second to bitcoin (due to merge mining)
Total Number of Coins? - < 21 million (less than BTC.. less due to lost coins.. not a lot though)
Is it going to die? - highly unlikely, unless btc does?
Age (stability)? The Oldest Altcoin and not just a copy.. actually does something unique... and has infinite possible uses.
Usage? - lots of things, but nothing which really increases it's value (unless .bit domains take off)..  would be good if some system was used in which users have to "top up" their NMC accounts with say 1 or 10 NMC, to be able to use some features (e.g. send a message), maybe it costs 0.0001... this would go to the miners... of course if we used the NMC block chain for messaging, it would increase the blockchain size.. another problem...

Personally i think NMC is massively under valued.. in a logical sense you would think nmc should be valued at 1:1 BTC (at a minimum) .. but you can't use it for anything which would "increase" it's value.... currently...
I remember when it was once at 0.1 nmc/btc..

Khal:
Do you know why sendtoname is causing the client to crash (even on original namecoind 3.50), windows only (well, me only).. same problem with QT and original namecoind 3.50.

Ok, will try to test it a bit, but will try to compile it first :p

I tested it again on my computer (linux) and it was ok.
Command used: ./namecoind sendtoalias khal 0.0001
Result: 0.0001NMC sent to N1KHAL5C1CRzy58NdJwp1tbLze3XrkFxx9
Namecoin record: ./namecoind name_show id/khal
{
    "name" : "id/khal",
    "value" : "{ \"email\" : \"khal@dot-bit.org\", \"bitcoin\" : \"1KHAL8bUjnkMRMg9yd2dNrYnJgZGH8Nj6T\", \"namecoin\" : \"N1KHAL5C1CRzy58NdJwp1tbLze3XrkFxx9\" }",
}

Hum, I tested sendtoalias (which is another command, only in my branch), so it may not have helped you...
But I confirm that sendtoname works for me too.

the 0.01 for name_new is the 0.01 which is destroyed?

Same thing happened to me. After verification, it is the anti-dust mecanism :p
Do not send less than 0.01NMC to avoid it (another thing to update ?).



No coins are lost anymore since a long time.

A name_new is composed like that :
- 1 tx with the remainder of your coin (the change)
- 1 tx with an amount of 0.01NMC sent to you + a hash of (randomValue + yourName)

To create a name_firstupdate with the previous name, you must provide the random value and spend the previous 0.01 coins in this transaction (in bitcoin words : you sign the previous coins to prove you own it and then, you are able to spend it) and spend it to yourself again.

To create a name_update, you do exactly the same thing, except you can give an address you don't own on the command line to transfer the name to another person, which will be able to sign the received tx to update the name.

So, a name HAS a value of 0.01NMC at least.

When a name expire, the 0.01NMC stay there, locked.
There is currently no code able to read that name tx and spend it to a standard bitcoin tx (the network doesn't support). Not sure if it would be interesting or not ?

Size added on the explorer : http://explorer.dot-bit.org/nbb=100/fromb=0
1 or 2 cents of fee for 15k per tx is cheap for a world distributed and permanent storage system.
Namecoin can meet a great success :p

391k block : http://explorer.dot-bit.org/b/24a0f711c42787d22a9228399d3bddc9096181bc32fa430198362c7fb390bd3c

1 tx hash :  http://explorer.dot-bit.org/tx/b11ae7d2cc8a4ac606e4b9aa8aec3347e8d1b0559174a5e86bd47c6097cb23af
nb input tx: 495
nb output tx: 2
size: 32k
fee:  0.045NMC

This tx has reduced number of unspent tx a lot, for exemple. Should we really penalize that ? :p

One original tx that splitted amounts : http://explorer.dot-bit.org/tx/e5d13d2a2d695b4cf6e9ed07c93aaff5abcdf5a3041c754b82519659093d47e8
input : 1
ouput : 40
fees : 0.13NMC
size: 1,5k

However, there are things to do about fees.

But I don't know how to fix an arbitrary amount that have a different value in 2 years ?
I like simple solutions and using an arbitrary amount based on current bitcoin & fiat value is not good one, but maybe the simpliest.

Any simple idea ?






Indeed, that's a hard limit on number of names and with money that don't go to miners (to avoid free names I guess)
It is a sufficiently high number to make it evolve (being dynamic or not) long before we need more room.

Good points, hadn't noticed that larger TX reducing the TXout ....No simple ideas ...I'll think some more about it.

Larger blocks may not be such an issue if we get leveldb and ultraprune blockchain handling features from latest bitcoin implemented anyway?

Personally I do not think namecoins *should* have an "artificial" value (like in doing something to force the value up as you seem to suggest).  The point of namecoin is to have a secure and distributed name-value system (with a lot of different useful applications) - and in my opinion it is *not* to have a coin that can be used for payments or has a high intrinsic value, as the goal of bitcoin is.

To me namecoins are just what you need in order to make the system work, and also in order to prevent a bit mass-reservations of names by making a reservation (plus also the transactions that all nodes have to process on the blockchain) cost something.  As long as the costs are high enough to prevent spamming and abuse, that's fine.

Hi.. what i was suggesting was "be-careful" with the fees (you missed that bit of the quote out:))... in-case NMC value increases