Tuesday 27th May 2014


1 – Namecoin

Namecoin had a fair launch. It was not premined or instamined. It is a genuine attempt at a distributed DNS.

The current Domain Name System ICANN, is a centralized committee that meets 4X per year and has close ties to the US government.

A decentralized DNS makes internet censorship much more difficult. In 2011 Wikileaks claimed that Namecoin and Bitcoin will be revolutionary. Julian Assange has spoken about how a distributed DNS such as Namecoin is the most important technology to achieving free speech. – Lee Banfield


Monday 29th September 2014

Ethereum vs. Namecoin

Ethereum itself is economically broken. An increase in ‘ether’ value raises costs for unrelated apps A, B & C.

App A gets popular, App B becomes more expensive to use (& execute). You don’t want apps tied together economically like that. See for a better example of the future.

With Ethereum, an overnight bubble can mean you cannot use your favorite app, as it just became too expensive – Jeff Garzik


Monday 29th September 2014


Decentralized app, with bitcoin security as an assist. It is tokens that enable certain database operations. Never meant to be money. Token value comes from db ops’ value.

Market price of namecoin moves independently of other applications (though inevitably tied to merged mining and bitcoin) – Jeff Garzik


Monday 29th December 2014

Decentralized Internet Projects

Seeing Ethereum increasingly characterized as decentralized Internet substitute rather than a bitcoin substitute. Off the top of my head, MaidSafe, meshnet, and Namecoin are all “decentralize the Net” approaches – Andrea Castillo


Sunday 11th January 2015


Namecoin was the first credible fork of the Bitcoin codebase and remains one of the few altcoins of enduring interest.

The Namecoin project was born out of a desire to expand the principles that laid the foundation for Bitcoin’s success in reinventing money to doing the same for Domain and other name services. Namecoin was even early enough to get suggestions and code commits from Satoshi Nakamato himself.

A healthy well adopted implementation of Namecoin could be nearly as great of a boon for a free Internet as Bitcoin has been as a free medium of trade – Bingo Boingo


Dan McArdle: Why haven’t .bit TLDs taken off at all yet? Mainstream takes a long time, obv, but I’d expect a little use in the Bitcoin community at least

Justus Ranvier: Because there’s no reliable way to integrate a .bit resolver into a DNS stack. All the software that claims to do this sucks.

Dan McArdle: Yeah, I realize there are many un/under-developed pieces. Just seems odd that so little dev has happened on it in 3.5yrs. Curious if there’s a fundamental market/econ/whatever problem that I’m missing (besides the usual chicken/egg).


Wednesday 6th May 2015


So here’s my opinion, which is really going to get me hated, but I think Namecoin as a decentralized DNS-type system is dead.

It’s had nearly four years to catch on, and it has pretty much zero adoption. There are 100,000s of squatted domains, but only about 30 developed Dot-Bit sites. All of those are mirrors of Dot-Com or Dot-Net or Dot-Org sites (as they probably should be, to provide redundancy and protection against censorship), and about half of those 30 sites are mine.

There are probably less than 5,000 people in the world set up to actually view Dot-Bit sites, based on downloads of MeowBit and FreeSpeechMe. There was a lot of mining and trading of Namecoin, and a lot of squatting domains, but almost no building of domains or use of resolvers.

The problem is three-fold:

1) Namecoin wasn’t easy enough to use. The wallet still sucks

2) Some of the team tried to partner Namecoin with Google and even ICANN. That makes no sense. That’s making a technology to circumvent governments and then handing it over to governments.

3) Most people don’t care. Despite censorship of the Web around the world, and the threat of more impending Web censorship in the US, most people would rather spend hours forwarding and discussing horror stories of censorship and impending doom than actually spending an hour making their own domain censorship-proof by setting up a Dot-Bit mirror URL and then promoting it.

Michael Dean


Friday 2nd October 2015

Onename Migrates from Namecoin to Bitcoin

Since earlier this year, we have been planning to migrate our blockchain ID registration service from Namecoin to Bitcoin.

When working with Namecoin, we faced several challenges that Bitcoin helps us overcome.

With a merge-mined cryptocurrency like Namecoin, the security of the blockchain is typically a subset of the “main chain.” We noticed in late 2014 that a single mining pool consistently had more than 51% of the hashing power on Namecoin while having significantly less of the hashing power on Bitcoin.

Recently, the situation has been even worse with a single mining pool controlling over 60% of Namecoin’s hashrate. If this pool were to attack the network, it could reorganize the blockchain, censor name registrations, deny updates, and squat names as they expire.

The Namecoin community has known about this for some time but there is little to nothing that they can do about it. We’ve actually seen Discus Fish controlling up to 75% mining power in a particular week.

Namecoin deserves full credit for originally solving naming on a blockchain. But after considering all of the above factors, it was an easy decision to move our blockchain ID registration system from Namecoin to Bitcoin.

In general, after our experience with running the production network we strongly believe that decentralized applications and services need to be on the largest, most secure blockchain. Currently, there is no other blockchain that even comes close to Bitcoin in terms of these security requirements. – Onename


Saturday 2nd July 2016

In May 2014 I wrote a report looking to find a few coins that were potentially useful and not scams. I couldn’t find many because of the premined, instamined problem.

Here’s how the coins I analyzed on May 27th 2014 have performed since:

Category 2: Legitimate / Potentially Useful Coins


May 27th 2014: Market Cap = $22.4 mill

July 1st 2016: Market Cap = $5.9 mill



Key Points

  • Bitcoin’s market cap has grown from $7.3 billion to $10.5 billion, an increase of 45%
  • The Monero price has increased significantly
  • The Ripple price has performed surprisingly well
  • Counterparty and Namecoin disappointed


It’s Just Not Going to Happen

In theory this should be a great project. Even Satoshi supported it in the BitcoinTalk forum. Julian Assange said it could be the most important development for freedom of speech.

At this stage it seems like a dying project with pretty much zero adoption and complaints about usability. It’s just not progressed. It’s gone nowhere and there’s no momentum coming from anywhere.

Dan McArdle: Why haven’t .bit TLDs taken off at all yet? Mainstream takes a long time, obv, but I’d expect a little use in the Bitcoin community at least

Justus Ranvier: Because there’s no reliable way to integrate a .bit resolver into a DNS stack. All the software that claims to do this sucks.



Disqualified Coins

Ripple (Centralized. Working with banks)


Coins with Too Many Problems

Ethereum (Too complex and insecure)

Namecoin (Hasn’t functioned well or got anywhere after many years)


Legitimate Coins


Lee Banfield, July 2016 Report: The Most Legitimate Altcoins



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: