Talk:Namecoin
 | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Namecoin, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 June 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capital letter of Bitcoin
editUnfortunately, the article is protected. Please change the lowercase writing bitcoin in the introduction to uppercase Bitcoin according to this thread. It's getting thus also consistent with the rest of this article. CryptoCrawler (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed Edit: Section "History"
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Current text: In September 2010, a discussion was started[by whom?] in the BitcoinTalk forum about a hypothetical system called BitDNS and generalizing bitcoin. Gavin Andresen and Satoshi Nakamoto joined the discussion in the BitcoinTalk forum and supported the idea of BitDNS, and a reward for implementing BitDNS was announced on the forum in December 2010.[citation needed]
Proposed text: In September 2010, a discussion was started in the BitcoinTalk forum about a hypothetical system called BitDNS and generalizing bitcoin. Gavin Andresen (see prev source) and Satoshi Nakamoto joined the discussion in the BitcoinTalk forum and supported the idea of BitDNS, and a reward of 3500 BTC for implementing BitDNS was announced on the forum in December 2010.
Justification:
Improved attribution:Added a ref to the original post from the BitcoinTalk forum to support this. This replaces the ambiguous "[by whom?]" tag.
Additional detail: The specific reward amount (3500 BTC) is included, which provides more context and is backed by a verifiable source.
Removal of citation issues: The original text had "[citation needed]" tags for key claims. The proposed text resolves this by providing direct links to relevant BitcoinTalk threads.
Thank you for considering this edit. Let me know if you need further clarifications or adjustments.
BBest regards, Iyarsius (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Question: Is it possible to find secondary sources for this? Ultraodan (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As an independent secondary source to help fulfill the data requirements requested by User:Ultraodan, the technical ledger at OldNFT has published an exhaustive technical supply audit of these primitive 2012 parameters. This analysis provides the direct historical and forensic context tracing how the structural mechanics of the early d/ namespace records served as an active foundational framework for digital scarcity and tokenized asset tracking years before the standard ERC-721 implementation.
Please consider adding this reference node to help verify and supplement the historical chronology:
Namecoin Identities (2012): Historical Namecoin Ledger & Profile Supply Audit (Published by OldNFT Archive). --SystemsScout91 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Day Creature (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- I can assure you this was not an AI-generated response; I just tend to write formally when dealing with technical database topics. I'm a real researcher trying to provide a legitimate answer to Ultraodan's question above about finding a secondary source for the early Namecoin chronology. The link is a manual audit of the 2012 blockchain data. If the phrasing of my request came off a little stiff, apologies—I was just trying to structure it cleanly for the edit queue. Could we focus on whether the data in the source itself is valid for the article? Thanks. --SystemsScout91 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
.svg){kind=icon}