<topace> listtransactions still hasnt made it into svn has it ?
<aceat64> satoshi is somewhat hostile towards it
<Kiba> we need to gitify satoshi's project!
<kisom_dev> truth
<topace> huh why's that? against the method in which it was implemented? or against the concept of it?
<aceat64> topace: I'll find the thread
<aceat64>
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=611.msg6706#msg6706<bitbot> [PATCH] implement 'listtransactions' : What are you needing to use listtransactions for? The reason I didn't implement listtransactions is I want to make sure web programmers don't use it. It would be very easy to latch onto that for watching for received payments. There is no reliable way to do it that way and make sure nothing can slip through the crack...
<topace> yea reading the thread now...
<topace> i still dont understand why he thinks its unreliable or not good idea for web applications? its perfect for web applications as far as i can see
<nanotube> yea i'm not getting it either... and he things making a plain text structured string will make it "more difficult" for web applications, as if he hasn't heard of string.split() or regexps.
<nanotube> thinks
<topace> lol yea
<topace> when i read that i just laughed
<topace> if it outputs it, it can be parsed
<necrodearia> topace: The more discussion about it in the thread, perhaps the more realization Satoshi will have to incorporate it maybe?
<aceat64> he's somewhat correct, listtransactions is bad way to determine if someone in particular has sent you bitcoins
<topace> why ?
<aceat64> the standard route of getnewaddress then monitor it with getreceivedbyaddress is really the best way
<aceat64> if you just look at transactions you can't see _who_ sent you money
<topace> sure you can, if you've labelled the address
<topace> or even if you ahvent, tied the address to an external account
<aceat64> ...
<aceat64> it doesn't work like that, when I sent you btc it could come from any number of my addresses
<aceat64> send*
<topace> yea but the address that shows in "listtransactions" shows the address it was sent TO
<topace> aka, the address that i've assigned to your account in my web application
<aceat64> oh, I see what you are saying, basically you're talking about the same idea of generating a unique address for each person but using listtransaction instead of getreceivedbyaddress to monitor it
<aceat64> Satoshi is talking about people using only listtransactions I think
<topace> yea.. you'd NEED to assign a unique address to each account in your web application
<topace> otherwise listtransactions would be just as useless as getreceivedbyaddress
<topace> i just don tsee the difference, once you have an address assigned to an account, you can get the TOTAL of all deposits using getreceivedbyaddress, or you can get each individual deposit using listtransactions
<aceat64> I personally run a client with the listtransactions patch in it
<aceat64> I think it should be in the vanilla client
aceat64> if someone is dumb enough to use just listtransactions and try to match up users with a transaction based on time and/or amount only, I say let them
<topace> yea that'd be impossible to do reliably
<topace> but also very stupid :p
<aceat64> I'm sure someone will do it
<topace> you create an account, you generate an address for it, and tell the account holder what the address is... it seems like a no-brainer to me
<aceat64> by not having listtransactions it makes it a lot harder to make an alternate GUI
<topace> a lot harder / impossible :p
<aceat64> well, you can make an alternate GUI, it'll just suck
<topace> yea, cuz it cant see any transactions :p
<topace> maybe thats the ulterior motive - to force people to use the vanilla client
<topace> _his_ client
<aceat64> I doubt it, I think he's just being a bit too over-protective
Show Posts
