|
A client with a decent interface could just have an address book with a "trusted" checkbox next to people in the address list. If an address belongs to a trusted party, it could be a green "0/unconfirmed (trusted)" or whatever.
Merchants and providers could just let users download a vCard containing their bitcoin address, and/or have it embedded in their contact pages using an appropriate XHTML microformat.
|
|
|
|
|
12*12 / two attempts = 72.
So potentially, for every 72 bank accounts you have access to, you can steal from Dwolla?
|
|
|
|
|
Not married but may as well be. Booze and flowers, in that order.
|
|
|
|
Your sentences above make me think that you were more involved in some commercial product development and not an open source ego-stroking fests. Nope, but I've decided to put my money where my mouth is and do some hacking rather than being a whiny little girl about it. Over the coming weeks I'll focus on reading and understanding bitcoin-alt, hopefully, if I can find the time, I'll be able to contribute my ideas back this way. edit: looks like bitcoin-alt isn't finished. I guess I'll have to get back into C++ |
|
|
|
|
I'd personally like to see adjustments to Bitcoin that make it the backbone of all future proof-of-work systems, that way we wouldn't have hundreds of competing systems all wasting energy. Not sure how/if this is possible though, or what type of other systems will spring up in future.
|
|
|
|
|
Guys dig technology more than girls. Once Bitcoin is more about currency and less about technology then we'll see more women using it.
|
|
|
|
I know plenty of people who are diligent about backups. Of course, I also know plenty of people who are not. I also know that every single one of the latter knows they should be backing their data up, and they still don't do it. How do you solve a problem like that?
An immutable, encrypted wallet that can be posted everywhere. An option for either maximum anonymity (new key each time), or maximum ease of use (a single address), with the latter being the default. Nags and prompts in the client to make people back up their wallets once they contain over a certain balance. Store the wallet in my documents, not in %appdata%, so it's actually visible and can be backed up by normal users who do make occasional backups. Detect DropBox, Skydrive, UbuntuOne and so on, offer to store the file in these online locations by default. Option to print private keys or deterministic wallet seed to paper as a QR code, and the option to import it again. Shift attitudes from "works for me, lusers" to "our users are a fragile and delicate resource that must be protected at all costs" |
|
|
|
I backup my important stuff daily. Some really critical things get backed up hourly or even more often. I've lost enough data to know that I don't want it to ever happen again.
Let's assume that you know one other person with a computer, do they also have an anal backup procedure like yours? If not then Bitcoin is a liability for 50% of all the computer users who you know. It should be accessible to 99.9% if it's to be successful. |
|
|
|
I can't tell if these are machine generated or human generated. Having an algorithm (even if it's an informal one) based on facts is a lot better than all the crazy self-rating probability schemes that Astrohacker keeps pushing. Not only that, but you can perform aggregate analysis on facts more easily than on opinions. Kind of machine generated, like generated by some software as part of a process followed by humans. There would of course be some registry of registered dialects like how HTML microformats work on the semantic web. Which means you could do some pretty amazing stuff with this data, you'd essentially have a tree of logic that could be explored by any number of crazy algorithms. |
|
|
|
Ok, I see what you mean. What would you recommend in my situation? Although I wish this project to remain open-source, I am nonetheless interested in making money off of it, and by allowing people to redistribute it would basically mean that anyone can use the code/design of Safebit and rebrand it as they see fit, and I find it a bit discomforting. Yeah, that's the main problem. If you want to make money from the project then you'll be lucky to find other devs to contribute for free |
|
|
|
The corporate institution isn't rationally comparable to the systemic subjigation of an entire race/culture/religion of people over the course of generations. Just trying to make this comparision drops your credibility about three points in my opinion. I shouldn't even have to support that position. Such a statement is comparable to violating Godwin's Law, as anyone who trys to play that card loses the argument by default.
You're breaking Metagodwin's Law by making that comparison. |
|
|
|
I just dreamed this up a moment ago while reading this thread, so apologies if its a bit immature. The problem of trust is that it's trust in a person, while a better system would be to only trust facts. Imagine a semantic network of signed factoids that are readable by both man and machine and signed by the authors of the facts. Factiods ought to be tiny fragments of information, chained together by semantic references: "1: A contract was agreed between Alice and Mallory" (<Alice>, <Mallory>) "2: <1> is worth $50" (<Alice>, <Mallory>) "3: In <1>, Alice will send $50" (<Alice>, <Mallory>) "4: After <3>, Mallory will send Goods" (<Alice>, <Mallory>) "5: <3> is complete" (<Alice>, <DHL>) "6: <4> is complete" (<Mallory>) "7: <5> is false" (<Mallory>) A global network of this information could then be mined and sophisticated software can fish out the truth-tellers from the liars, that is of course, if you don't mind having all this information public. |
|
|
|
|
I like the idea, it's really cool. It got me thinking: for it to be effective wouldn't we need a foolproof way of sharing and verifying facts on the Internet? Does something like this already exist? A semantic web of trust or something, preferably some form of decentralized network
|
|
|
|
It can be modified, just not re-distributed at this time.
I would much rather have a massive effort supporting one free and open source Bitcoin client than having a tug of war between otherwise identical clients over single features. That's currently an ideological barrier to entry for other devs though. Putting an ND license on it goes against the spirit of github, it will prevent people from forking and submitting their pull requests. If the entire community would focus it's development time into one single client (up until this point) there wouldn't be a need for Safebit because most of the critical problems would have gone away, but there are dozens of clients each written in it's own unique style and language, and from those even more splinters going to each and his own ideas. I disagree, like you said, that would be design by committee. Diversity is important, the best front-end will win the support of the users, the best back-end will win the support of the developers. You obviously have good design skills which is something we've been calling out for, you have a clear vision of what a user-friendly client should look like. That's something that people can rally behind! If you wish to contribute to the code it will be greatly appreciated by myself and the rest of the community, from my own experience Design by Committee rarely works. I agree, the best open source projects have a benevolent dictator running a tight meritocracy. It's your project, you've made the best looking client so far, you get to decide what goes in and what stays out, but an ND license will just encourage other people to make competing clients. I'm actually tempted, your UI is an inspiration.  |
|
|
|
|
Nice work! The official Bitcoin client looks like a command line compared to this. Shame about the license though, it would be far more useful if it could be modified.
|
|
|
|
|
I also like the graphs. Would be nice if blockexplorer looked like that.
|
|
|
|
As a singularitarian and technology geek I welcome our robot overlords, I just can't imagine new types of jobs for humans if technological change continues at its current rate.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. By definition, if there are no more jobs for humans to do, every human need will have been met. [/quote] No, that's not right. Assuming that you still need food, water and shelter, how exactly would you convince anyone who owns the means of production to produce for you if you have nothing to offer them in return? |
|
|
|
No. That is simply a retarded question. Like asking, if you won the lottery, would you burn half of the winnings?
No, it's like asking "if you won the lottery, *could* you, *in theory* burn half of your winnings?" I personally thought it was an interesting question, and that if any post in this thread is retarded it's your (non-)answer. |
|
|
|
edit: some wrong info, redacted The phone was registered to a Roy D Wear at an address on Wee Lassie Lane, Houston, TX. http://www.spokeo.com/reverse-phone-lookup/search?p=281-685-0510&sst=2http://www.spokeo.com/search?q=Roy%20Wear%2C%20Houston%2C%20TX#:1361407197&sst=2There are only 30 addresses on this road: http://www.city-data.com/harris-county/W/Wee-Lassie-Lane-1.htmlRoy D Wear lives at 4615 Wee Lassie Lane. Interestingly, 4406 Wee Lassie Lane was bought by Robert A and Harriett Martin in 1986 (coincidence? possibly, Martin is a very popular surname in Texas, but maybe not) That number was also registered to someone else before and there is no date listed, so please, please don't engage in any vigilantism without first verifying that this is him. I recommend simply finding a number for these addresses, call 4615 and speak with Mrs Martin, ask her about her son. Social engineer the neighbours to get a number if none is listed. Send a recorded signed-for parcel to 4615 containing a letter demanding your money back; proof of delivery and a signature is all the evidence you need. If these dox turn out to be correct, you can send my 1BTC to 1GyzhwaLYMnvkgrKszCabRuuHCxvTwpAWF  |
|
|
|
|
The most sensible way to design a client would be to make a list of all the things it can do, group them into sensible groups, each containing as little as possible, then choose appropriate metaphors for each thing that can be manipulated. Tacking stuff onto the already rather ugly UI isn't a good idea IMO. We need a proper UI designer who can do this, programmers are notoriously bad at UI design.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
