Ouch - am guessing a bug report to the "not so advanced" installer might be in order.

For sure having to deal with '\' is a PITA (there is a lot of "escaping" code throughout the CIYAM project that is conditionally compiled for Windows although I would have thought that Java programs wouldn't have such problems).

You can use '/' with Windows (it doesn't work so well with console command programs as '/' is the option prefix rather than '-' but it works fine for POSIX things like file operations).

(so you can use '/' in config files for both Linux and Windows assuming that is being used to identify file or folder names)

You could use an encryption tool such as GPG for that.

The link that I gave is to an Open SUSE "live distro" that includes the scripts from that github link as well as Bitcoin (although the version hasn't been updated for some time), vanitygen and other tools (such as the QR code software).

You are welcome to use any of the software (if you have any specific questions about the scripts then feel free to PM me).

Apples and oranges - what @amaclin was referring to was the Bitcoin source code itself (not Bitcoin's scripting language).

The CIYAM Safe (https://susestudio.com/a/kp8B3G/ciyam-safe) is another (more hard-core technical) approach to cold storage (which uses QR codes for communications).

The utilities "qrencode" and ZBar are basically all you need to use for that part of things.

The CIYAM blockchain itself is not a coin at all, however, this potential clone may end up being one (in which case it will need to have its own separate "brand").

The key difference in approach with the CIYAM blockchain is that POW is used for account creation and verification (this also prevents Sybil attacks).

Please contact @vbcs to work out where we can meet (most likely either at CIYAM's slack or via group Skype IM).

That would be most helpful as UI is one major area that CIYAM Developers don't currently have covered.

Giving up rights to the software is a very bad idea and it would likely mean that the plans for the CIYAM Developers to create a clone of Qora would have to be scrapped.

That being said it is up to the Qora community and developers to decide their future direction (so for now I will simply watch and see what unfolds).

Note that if the CIYAM Developers do end up creating a clone we would very much desire the assistance of the existing Qora developers and community (if there is no such support then it would be less likely to be worth the effort).

If you supposedly know anything about Bitcoin then of course you would know the answer to that - wouldn't you?

(btw - are you still using binary floating point for monetary calculations?)

You could use the OP_RETURN bytes to do this but as there are only 80 such bytes I think that would make it pretty difficult to add anything other than a very small encrypted message.

The point of Bitcoin is not encrypted messaging or the like - it is just an open, distributed ledger with no central control.

Although perhaps unknown to many on this forum the CIYAM Developers have been developing a new kind of blockchain technology for the last couple of years (it isn't ready for use yet but is getting close to completion).

As the CIYAM Developers have been involved with Qora for some time we are now considering the idea of perhaps creating a clone of Qora that works using the principles of the CIYAM blockchain (which is not POS but instead a POW for account creation that then works on hash-chains for block creation) as a trial of the concept.

The final CIYAM blockchain won't be a coin and if this Qora clone is actually created then it won't be owned or controlled by CIYAM but instead according to rules that will be part of the coin's creation (perhaps involving those Qora holders prior to the block that was published before this post).

Such a clone would of course support AT and ACCT between Qora and itself (and Burst) so IMO it should actually help both Qora and Burst.

Also to perhaps put things in perspective (as to why I am suggesting a clone) please research Diaspora (which was a failed attempt at a decentralised social network). IMO you can't charge people to create blogs or web pages (as it will never take off) so you need a way that allows that to be free (which requires controlling the amount of accounts that can be created to avoid attacks).

This should be moved to alt coins (Ethereum posts do not belong in the Bitcoin Development and Technical Discussion sub-forum).

Why do you persist with the nonsense posting?

SegWit was not created to save bandwidth (in the short term) - can you please repeat that for me?

(it seems that you really are a troll after all as you refuse to acknowledge this very simple fact and keep on posting about bandwidth - also if you didn't troll before then it is very likely that you are not the original owner of the account)

To be "safest" when transferring the unsigned tx to the offline computer (and the signed tx back to the online computer) you'd be best to use QR codes (rather than USB flash drives as these could theoretically be compromised).

I would also recommend removing any WiFi card or other network card from the offline computer (to avoid it accidentally getting online).

The witness information is separate to the block data (with SegWit).

I don't know where the figure 75% itself originates from but when SegWit is implemented then all such tx signatures are no longer stored in the block (thus leaving more space for more transactions in the block without changing the 1MB block size limit).

If you're seriously not trolling then why do you keep on posting about SegWit and bandwidth savings?

(for the Nth time SegWit was not created for bandwidth savings so arguing about whether or not you'll get whatever amount of said savings is irrelevant)

No we are not. The purpose of SegWit has been explained to you numerous times (and saving bandwidth is not it).

It is clear now that you are posting nonsense repeatedly just like all the other trolls (you might be being paid to post your nonsense but others will post for nothing just to point it out so that you won't "win" using this approach - there seems to be at least 10+ forum members using the exact same approach and as tiring as it is to have to keep countering it I'm going to continue to do so as it makes this approach more and more obvious and therefore less and less effective).