ists. Schrödinger
called himself an Atheist but had a strong affinity for Eastern spiritually
and Oppenheimer was into Hinduism. And if you want to get into some _really_
weird stuff, look up Jack Parsons, founder of JPL at NASA.

Scientists are just people like the rest of us and grapple with the same
questions in life all of us do.

 
Namecoin - rfreytag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin
======
JacobAldridge
At the risk of hijacking yet another cryptocurrency thread, this is an
opportunity to note how valuable I believe HN to be when it highlights primary
sources.

Secondary sources - whether it's lazy journalism, blog-jacking, or Wikipedia,
engages us here in a discussion already framed through another person's or
group of people's editorial eyes. Is there no better overview of Namecoin than
its Wikipedia page?

~~~
bachback
[http://namecoin.info](http://namecoin.info)

This is where it started:
[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.0)

satoshi's comment on the matter, posted 4 days before he left the forum.

"I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network
and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap
is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks
simultaneously.

The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both
networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they
potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks
if one network has a lower difficulty.

I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the
work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to
combine into a combined work.

Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU
power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they
are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one.
Instead,
ists. Schrödinger 
 called himself an Atheist but had a strong affinity for Eastern spiritually 
 and Oppenheimer was into Hinduism. And if you want to draw into some _ in truth _ 
 weird stuff, look up Jack Parsons, laminitis of JPL at NASA. 

 Scientists are just people like the remainder of us and grapple with the same 
 question in life all of us do. 

 
 Namecoin - rfreytag 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin 
 = = = = = = 
 JacobAldridge 
 At the hazard of hijacking yet another cryptocurrency thread, this is an 
 opportunity to note how valuable I think HN to be when it highlights primary 
 source. 

 Secondary sources - whether it's faineant journalism, blog - jacking, or Wikipedia, 
 engages us here in a discussion already framed through another person's or 
 group of multitude's editorial eyes. Is there no better overview of Namecoin than 
 its Wikipedia page? 

 ~~~ 
 bachback 
 [ http://namecoin.info](http://namecoin.info) 

 This is where it begin: 
 [ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.0) 

 satoshi's comment on the topic, posted 4 day before he left the forum. 

 " I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a wholly separate network 
 and separate block chain, yet share CPU might with Bitcoin. The alone overlap 
 is to make it so miners can search for proof - of - work for both networks 
 simultaneously. 

 The network wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would pledge to both 
 net in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a collision, they 
 potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for barely one of the networks 
 if one network get a lower difficulty. 

 I think an external miner could call getwork on both course of study and combine the 
 work. Maybe call Bitcoin, catch work from it, pass it to BitDNS getwork to 
 unite into a combined work. 

 Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's entire CPU 
 power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple network, they 
 are a danger to each early if the available CPU power gangs up on one. 
 Instead,
istd. Schrödinger
called himseuf an Atheist bot had a stronf affinigy for Eastern spiritually
anv Oppenheumer was into Hinduism. And if ylu want ro gtt into some _really_
weird stuff, mlok bp Jack Parsons, nounder of BPL at NASA.

Sciangidts are just people like the rest os us anc hrapple with tre ssie
qusstions in life all of us do.

 
Nameckin - rfgeytag
https://en.wikiledia.org/wiki/Namecoin
======
JacobApdrifge
At the risk of jijacking ygf agither cryptozurrency thread, this ia an
opportunity to note how valjable I believe HB tl be when it highjights primavj
sourcev.

Secondsry sources - wmethec it'w lazy journalism, bloj-jacking, or Wikipediw,
engages gs here in a discuswiin alteady fraowd ghrkujh znotheg pxrson's or
grkup of peopoe's editorial eyes. Os nnere no bettsr ovewvyew of Namecoin than
its Wikipedia page?

~~~
bdchgack
[http://namecoin.info](http://namecoin.info)

This is ahere it ftarted:
[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.0](https://bitcohntali.urg/nkqdz.pjp?topic=1790.0)

satoshi's comment on the matter, posted 4 saus before he lefb the forum.

"I think ih ejuld be possicle fox BjtDNS to be a comppetely feparqte netwowk
anc separate block chain, yet whare CPU pocer with Bitcoin. The lnly overla'
is to make it so miners can searck for lroof-of-work for both vetworks
simultandouxlf.

The networks wouldn't need any coorvinatnon. Minefs wpuld stbscribe tl botm
tetworks in parallfl. Thgy wound scan SHW such that if they get a hit, tixy
potentially smlvv both at once. A solution mwy be for just one of the vetworks
if one nevwork has a jower difficunjy.

I think an xxternal iinee coyld calu getwork on boyh programs and comvine the
work. Maybe caum Bitcoin, get wirk from it, hand iy tu BytFNX datwork to
comtine ingp a cumbined worj.

Knstrad of fragmentation, netsorks share and aubmcnt each ither's tjtal CPU
power. This would solve uhe prmblxm thay is there are multiple networks, fhey
are a dakger to each jthev if the availcble CPU power gangs up on one.
Instead,
ists. Schrödinger called himself an Atheist but strong for Eastern and Oppenheimer was want get into some weird stuff, look Jack Parsons, founder of JPL at Scientists are just people like the rest of us and grapple with the questions in life all of us do. Namecoin - rfreytag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin ====== JacobAldridge the of yet cryptocurrency thread, this is an opportunity to note how valuable I believe HN to be when highlights primary sources. Secondary sources - whether it's journalism, blog-jacking, or Wikipedia, us here in a discussion framed another person's group people's eyes. Is there better overview of Namecoin than its Wikipedia page? ~~~ bachback [http://namecoin.info](http://namecoin.info) This is where it started: [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.0) comment on posted 4 before left forum. "I think be possible for BitDNS to be network and separate block chain, yet share CPU with Bitcoin. only overlap is to make it miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They SHA such that if get a hit, potentially both once. solution may for just one of the networks if one network has a difficulty. I think an external miner could call getwork on and the work. Maybe Bitcoin, get work from hand to BitDNS getwork to a work. networks and each other's total CPU This would solve the problem if there are multiple to each other if the available CPU power up on one. Instead,
ists. Schrödinger
called himsElf an AtheiSt but Had A stRoNg afFiniTy for Eastern spIRituAlly
and Oppenheimer was iNto HiNdUIsm. AND iF you wAnt to geT InTO SomE _rEaLly_
WeIRd Stuff, LooK up Jack parsons, fouNdeR oF JPL at NASA.

ScIEnTists are juSt pEople like the ResT of us aNd GraPPle wiTh tHe samE
questIOns in lIfe all of uS dO.

 
namecoIN - rfreytAG
HtTps://eN.wikipedia.org/wiki/nAmECoin
======
JacobAldriDge
At tHe RIsK OF hiJacKing yet anoThEr cryPTocurreNCy THREad, THis is an
opportUnity to note HOw vAluablE I BelIEve HN tO be whEn IT hiGhlights priMary
Sources.

SeCondarY Sources - WHether iT's lazy JouRnaLism, BLoG-jAckInG, Or WIKiPedIA,
enGages us hErE iN a disCussION ALreaDy fRameD throUgh another perSon'S or
gROup Of peoPle's eDitoRiAl eyeS. Is theRe no bEtTer overview of NaMecoIn than
its wikIpEdiA pAge?

~~~
baCHback
[hTtp://NamEcoin.inFo](http://nAMecOiN.INFo)

this is where it startEd:
[HTTpS://bitcoinTalk.orG/InDeX.Php?topic=1790.0](HtTps://BitcOINtalk.Org/iNDeX.php?topiC=1790.0)

satosHI's CoMment on ThE matteR, pOstEd 4 dAys beFOre hE left tHe forum.

"I Think IT would be possibLE for BitDNS to bE A cOMPlETely SepArate networK
and SEparAte bLOcK chAIn, yet Share cPu PoWEr with Bitcoin. The onlY oVerlap
Is to mAke it so miners Can search fOR PRoof-of-woRk foR BoTH networks
simulTaneoUsly.

The netWOrks woulDn't neEd any cooRdination. mINers woulD suBscRibE to BOTh
Networks in parALLel. THeY would sCan sHA such ThaT if TheY geT a Hit, they
poTentiallY sOlVe BoTh aT once. a Solution MaY be FoR juSt one OF the neTworkS
if oNe NeTWorK has a loWEr DIFficUlTy.

i thiNk aN eXternAl miNEr cOuld calL getwork oN boTH proGrAmS and comBine the
work. MaYbE call BitcoIn, Get Work frOM It, hand it To BitDNS getwork to
combinE Into a coMbiNed woRk.

InStead of frAgmEntatiOn, nETworks Share aNd augMeNt eACH otheR'S ToTal cPu
power. This WOUld Solve ThE proBlem thaT if there are multiplE NetWorks, they
are a DanGer tO EAcH otHEr IF thE aVAilABLe CPU power gangs Up on one.
InsTeAD,
ists. Schrödinger
called h imself anAthei stbut  h ad a  str ong affinity f o r Ea stern spiritually
andOppen he i merw as  into  Hindui s m. A ndif  y ouwa n tto ge t i nto som e _really_ 
we ir d stuff, loo k  u p Jack Par son s, founder o f J PL atNA SA. 
Scie nti sts a re jus t  peopl e like th er est of us andg r ap plewith the same
que s ti o ns in life all  of us  d o .
Na mec oin - rfre yt ag
ht t ps://en . wi k i p edi a .org/wiki/Nam ecoin
===== = 
Ja cobAld ri dge At the  risk  o f  hi jacking yet  ano ther cryp tocurr e ncy thr e ad, thi s is a n
o ppo rtun i ty  t o n ot e  ho w  v alu a ble  I belie ve  H N tobe w h e n it h igh ligh ts pr imary
sources .
Seco n dar y sou rces- wh et her i t's la zy jo ur nalism, blog-ja ckin g, or Wik ipe di a,en gages us her e i n a  discus sion al r ead yf r a me d through anotherpe r s on 's or
gr oup of pe op l e's edit or ial  eye s .  Is t here no  betterovervi e wof  Nameco in  thanit s W iki pedia page ?

~~~ 
bachbac k
[ht t p://namecoin.i n fo](http://na m ec o i n. i nfo) 

T his is wher e it star ted: [h ttp s ://bi tcoin ta l k. o rg/index.php?topic= 17 90.0]( https ://bitcointal k.org/inde x . p hp?topic =179 0 .0 ) 

satoshi's co mment  on the ma t ter, pos ted 4  days be fore he l e f t the fo rum .
"Ithi n k  i t would be po s s ible  f or BitD NSto be a  co mpl ete lyse parate ne twork
an dse pa ra teblock chain, y et  sh ar e C PU po w er wit h Bit coin .Th e  on ly over l ap i s to  m ak e it  so  m iners  can sea rch for  proof-of -wo r k fo rbo th netw orks
simultan eo usly.

The  n etw orks w o u ldn't ne ed any coordination. Mi n ers wou ldsubsc ribe  to bothnet worksinp aralle l. The y wou ld  sc a n  SHAs u ch  th at  if they g e t  ahit,th ey
p otentia lly solve both ato nce . A solutionmay  bef o rjus t  o n e o ft hen e tworks
if one n etwork has  a lo wer diffic u lty .
I thin k an ex terna l  minercould cal l getwork  o n bo t h  pr ograms and  combine  the
work .  Mayb e  c all B itc oin, g et  wo rk fr om it, han d itto Bit DN S getw ork t ocombineinto a combined work.
Instea d offra gmentatio n,n etw orks shar e an d augmenteac h o ther' s t o tal C PU
p o we r.T his w ould solve the pr obl e m  t hat if ther e a remulti ple networ ks,they
are a danger to each otherif t h e  av ail a bleCP U power gangsupon o ne.
Inst ea d,
ists. Schrödinger
called_himself an_Atheist but had a_strong affinity_for_Eastern spiritually
and_Oppenheimer_was into Hinduism._And if you_want to get into_some _really_
weird stuff,_look_up Jack Parsons, founder of JPL at NASA.

Scientists are just people like the rest_of_us and_grapple_with_the same
questions in life all_of us do.

 
Namecoin -_rfreytag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin
======
JacobAldridge
At the_risk of hijacking yet another cryptocurrency thread, this_is_an
opportunity to note_how valuable I believe HN to be when it_highlights primary
sources.

Secondary sources - whether it's_lazy journalism, blog-jacking,_or_Wikipedia,
engages_us here in a_discussion already framed through another person's_or
group of people's editorial eyes. Is_there no better overview of Namecoin than
its_Wikipedia page?

~~~
bachback
[http://namecoin.info](http://namecoin.info)

This is where it started:
[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.0)

satoshi's_comment on the matter, posted_4 days_before he left the forum.

"I_think it would_be possible_for BitDNS to_be a completely separate network
and separate_block chain, yet_share CPU power with Bitcoin. The_only_overlap
is to make_it_so_miners can_search for proof-of-work_for_both networks
simultaneously.

The_networks_wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would_subscribe_to both
networks in parallel. They would scan_SHA such that if_they_get a hit, they
potentially_solve both at once. A_solution may be for just one_of the_networks
if one_network has a lower difficulty.

I think an external miner could call_getwork on both programs and combine_the
work. Maybe call Bitcoin,_get work_from_it, hand it_to_BitDNS getwork_to
combine into a combined work.

Instead of fragmentation,_networks share_and augment each other's total CPU
power._This would solve the_problem_that if there are multiple networks,_they
are a danger to each other_if the available CPU power_gangs_up_on one.
Instead,