Thank you. We are just pragmatic, and use what works best for the end users. The choice of ETH chain for namespace contract is dictated by the existence of good quality ENS contract and necessary UX - even forking ENS it was quite a bit of work to wire it all up.

Would you rather we'd built a custodial solution where we control the names? That seems a dead end. And so far all BTC-adjacent smart-contact networks are not really as trustless as they claim to be (happy to be corrected here) - it's just a hard problem to build a trustless chain. In some remote future SimpleX network itself could provide computation consensus without underlying financial asset, but it's still a lot of work to get there.

The downside of ETH for the end users is that it restricts access and creates friction, which is why it's a test launch, and these names are temporary and free. So you can just wait until we release .simplex namespace - hopefully later this year.

For .simplex namespace we plan to use ETH's account abstraction, which would allow users to have full control over the names and key custody but without using any ETH to pay for it - some entity TBC would sell the name for any form of payment (BTC/XMR/USDT/ETH/fiat) and pay for gas to record the name on-chain (ETH account abstraction has the concept of paymaster, to allow developers/service providers to pay for gas for users' transactions).

Name is simply a reference to contact address - a way to connect.

Revocable by whom? They are records in blockchain contract, controlled by user key. So not revocable.

What's "sessionX"? :) But in general, verification always requires some alternative channel. If say a company publishes the name on the website, then you know that this name is likely controlled by the same entity that controls the website. This is not different from domain names - how do you know they are controlled by entities that you think they are?

We are planning to support other payments for .simplex names when they launch, including in-app payments.

Right now you can use any swap service, including Unstoppable swap - they even have a SimpleX Chat bot for that.

So, create an account in metamask, swap say $1 worth of ETH, that should cover the fee to register 2-3 test names.

There is no way to have names nobody controls without blockchain, is there?

Yes, the party that holds the redeemed note can withdraw unilaterally.

The note lifecycle is: purchase -> assign -> redeem -> withdraw. Each step changes the party, and this party can perform the next step.

Exit happens at withdrawal. The number of parties that can withdraw (and can be the recipient at redeem step) is limited and known - that's the core requirement of closed loop/limited network.

Misspelled the name - Alain Brenzikofer, sorry!

SimpleX Network is not federated. Consortium is an agreement, it's not an entity - it's purpose is licensing and governance of IP, it doesn't control who uses or participates in a network.