If you want to create cross platform apps for smart phones, you might want to take a look at PhoneGap. Apps are implemented using web technologies, such as, HTML5, CSS and JavaScript. You will also need a server as a smart phone will not have the resources to run as a full bitcoin node.

Hi Ian,

Love the site, very exciting!

I wish BitcoinTalk had the same funding model as CIYAM, it's much better being able to contribute to the features you want rather than making a blind site wide donation.

I was going to post a bid on a task, but got a little confused regarding the 'delivery date'. The 'delivery date' I assume is the latest the task must be completed by? If I place a bid on a task and it is not accepted until the day before the 'delivery date', does this mean I only have one day to complete the task?

(P.S. Congratulations on beating Kim Dotcom to the post with the client side encryption )

If you want a wallet that you only ever have to backup once you should look at using a deterministic wallet. All private keys and addresses are generated from a seed, as long as you have the seed backed up, you can recreate your wallet if it gets deleted.

No, transactions are recorded in the blockchain, not your wallet.

Thanks again ribuck, added 'Forking'.

@dystopiandrift

Thanks for the feedback, glad you found it useful.

@ribuck

Thanks ribuck, I have replaced the definition of 'Martingale' with your more appropriate description 

I think it would be quicker, for a human being, to make a cursory inspection of an address followed by a detailed inspection of a check number, as opposed to a detailed inspection of the full address.

But, as I'm the only one who compares bitcoin addresses I guess it's redundant.

Thanks all for the feedback.

Am I really the only one who makes detailed comparisons between bitcoin addresses to ensure they are the same?

I guess I must just be paranoid, maybe it's the irreversibility of a bitcoin transaction that scares me.

Am I the only one who makes comparisons between bitcoin addresses? Or do other people just paste & send without giving it a second look?

No, what I'm looking for is a quick and simple way of checking that two addresses are indeed the same, without having to make a detailed comparison of all the characters in the two addresses.

Just to reiterate, I'm not suggesting that there are shortcomings with address validation. I just think it would give human beings piece of mind, and maybe save some time.

I often double/triple check addresses and I think what I'm asking for is just to give me piece of mind. I feel especially uneasy when sending an address via IRC, I think it would be nice to be able to do the following;

IRC Chatlog:

Me: Here's my address 31uEbMgunupShBVTewXjtqbBv5MndwfXhb

Other: check FF4857EB

Me: confirmed

This would give me confidence that the address that was enter into the wallet by the other person is indeed the address I wanted to send to them.

Terrytibbs is an example of someone who had a scammer tag removed. See this thread for details.

Hello Scotland, Cornwall here. Always nice to meet a fellow Kelt.

Thanks Phin,

I have added 'DMT'.

Also added; ':/', 'ATM', 'Bubble', 'Inflation', 'Deflation', 'Git' & 'GitHub'


Haha, yes I'm sure he will  


[Edit]

Added; 'Hot Wallet', 'Cold Wallet' & 'Cold Storage'

The unmolested list is a collaborative effort compiled by myself and following forum members; knight22, greyhawk, uk1, littlebit, J3nc, mufa23, Portnoy, MoonShadow, Phinnaeus Gage, Aahzman, slardar, live627, bengina, crazyates, Grecoin, TooCasual, TangibleCryptography & User25.

If anyone has any comments, suggestions or requests regarding the original list then please post them here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126798.0, thank you.

This may have been suggested before, but I would like to propose that all bitcoin addresses should be displayed with a 'standard' checksum associated with it. Why? Because I think it is far too easy to make a transcription error, for example, take the following address:

31uEbMgunupShBVTewXjtqbBv5MndwfXhb

And compare it with this one:

31uEbMguoupShBVTewXjtqbBv5MndwfXhb

You could be forgiven for not noticing they are not the same. But, if we used a 'Standard Check Number' (in this case CRC32) that is displayed with the address then the difference is obvious.

Address: 31uEbMgunupShBVTewXjtqbBv5MndwfXhb
Check:   FF4857EB

Address: 31uEbMguoupShBVTewXjtqbBv5MndwfXhb
Check:   1855F17C

Of course it doesn't have to use CRC32, but in order for it to work a standard for 'Check Numbers' would have to be decided upon. They can then be compared across all bitcoin software and services and reduce the chances of payments being sent to the wrong addresse.

Thoughts?

(Mod note: not sure if this is the correct section to post this in  please move if not)

I think this belongs here ->


I found it here.

I think you may have posted in the wrong thread  

[Edit]

You want this thread.

Its been very slow for me most of the day, keep getting server not responding message.