Would either of you speculate on the view that Namecoin is being carefully used not to encourage a decentralized naming system, but to prevent one?
Looking back over Namecoin's history, a common thread seems to be a subtle misdirection of any effort to bring the coin to a wider audience.
Any comment? Or it's just more "bullshit"?
I mean, if you actually provided a specific claim rather than... whatever the hell the above is, I might be inclined to engage. But since you didn't, no, I'm not going to engage with inverse PoW.
That said, the people in a cypherpunk channel I hang out in did appreciate the comic relief about EC math, so thanks for that.
It's easy to con some people with platitudes that suggest you are hiding a superior motive.
Do you have an explanation for why Namecoin should not compete with Bitcoin that will get past my 60 year old bullshit detector?
My genuine impression is that you are deliberately trying to limit the popularity of decentralized naming, e.g. nmc.