3 ms·
> You claimed that Namecoin was "properly decentralised" and "uses blockchain to control ownership of domains and zone edits in a more secure way". Yeah, all 28
by dangerface 7y ago
> You claimed that Namecoin was "properly decentralised" and "uses blockchain to control ownership of domains and zone edits in a more secure way". Yeah, all 28 domains in use.
Yes that was my argument, we are both in agreement why are you so upset?
- DonHopkins 7y agoI'm not at all upset (and you're projecting again) -- I'm being sarcastic, and it whooshed right over your head. Look up: All 28 domains. Why didn't you point out what a failure it was in your argument (which has already been severely downvoted), unless you were being disingenuous when you evangelized Namecoin as a properly decentralised more secure solution, and not a failed improper insecure vulnerable dead dysfunctional boondoggle, as my quotes and citations proved?
- dangerface 7y agoRead dmos62's comment and my response again. I mention namecoin as a single example of decentralised dns and mention that there are other projects (thats not advocating or evangelising namecoin). I then point out the major problem with all of these alternative dns, no one uses them because few have incentive to do so. You responded by calling me a con-man (sounds reasonable) because I had the audacity to mention a technology in one of the only use case's its good at. > I'm not at all upset (and you're projecting again) -- I'm being sarcastic, and it whooshed right over your head. I got the sarcasm, I got the name calling, it's childish. If I got more upvotes would you consider my words instead of the con-man image you are projecting? I don't think so.