how to get attention without looking like spamming?

[btcusr]

What's the right way to get developer / reputed member's attention for my post without looking like spamming?

1. Personal messages
2. Tag ATTN, attn-sr, attn-hero, etc.
3. PM moderators

So this is my post,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=146710.msg

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

You don't because the idea is unpractical and bad.

[Stephen Gornick]

What's the right way to get developer / reputed member's attention for my post

I believe you did.

No.  This can't be done.

Transactions in bitcoin simply don't work they way you think they do.  Sorry.

[btcusr]

You don't because the idea is unpractical and bad.

An idea doesn't have to look good and practical.

May be, I didn't explain it well.

[btcusr]

What's the right way to get developer / reputed member's attention for my post

I believe you did.

No.  This can't be done.

Transactions in bitcoin simply don't work they way you think they do.  Sorry.

Transactions work in the way we make it work. We do have similar constructs in Bitcoin ecosystem; like, nlocktime.

Really, I didn't get any valid negative points from that thread. Most of the posts are either from me, or people saying it is not possible.

No one explained me how to keep single address for receiving funds, even some casual usage could leak private key, like unencrypted wallet.

So, there are two ways to do this. One, implementing it into Bitcoin client / protocol / transaction, or external (like a firstbits variant)

[vampire]

What's the right way to get developer / reputed member's attention for my post

I believe you did.

No.  This can't be done.

Transactions in bitcoin simply don't work they way you think they do.  Sorry.

Transactions work in the way we make it work. We do have similar constructs in Bitcoin ecosystem; like, nlocktime.

Really, I didn't get any valid negative points from that thread. Most of the posts are either from me, or people saying it is not possible.

No one explained me how to keep single address for receiving funds, even some casual usage could leak private key, like unencrypted wallet.

So, there are two ways to do this. One, implementing it into Bitcoin client / protocol / transaction, or external (like a firstbits variant)

Actually you got your answer - cannot be done without changing the current bitcoin protocol.

So no need to push the issue further, if you want to prove your point you're free to implement it yourself. Then you can provide a patch to bitcoin developers for review.

Cheers.

[deepceleron]

"How do I get Chevrolet's attention without spamming? I think the Camaro should come with off-road tires, a peanut butter dispenser, and get 100mpg. I am sure it wouldn't require lots of changes. With some (lot) effort, I can implement all this myself."

[poly]

What's the right way to get developer / reputed member's attention for my post

I believe you did.

No.  This can't be done.

Transactions in bitcoin simply don't work they way you think they do.  Sorry.

Transactions work in the way we make it work. We do have similar constructs in Bitcoin ecosystem; like, nlocktime.

Really, I didn't get any valid negative points from that thread. Most of the posts are either from me, or people saying it is not possible.

No one explained me how to keep single address for receiving funds, even some casual usage could leak private key, like unencrypted wallet.

So, there are two ways to do this. One, implementing it into Bitcoin client / protocol / transaction, or external (like a firstbits variant)

Actually you got your answer - cannot be done without changing the current bitcoin protocol.

So no need to push the issue further, if you want to prove your point you're free to implement it yourself. Then you can provide a patch to bitcoin developers for review.

Cheers.

+1. Sure, it's *possible*, just like how everything is possible, but it'll require a lot of changes and simply won't be a good idea to implement. This idea is one of them.

[btcusr]

Actually you got your answer - cannot be done without changing the current bitcoin protocol.
So no need to push the issue further, if you want to prove your point you're free to implement it yourself. Then you can provide a patch to bitcoin developers for review.
Cheers.

OK, agree. And let me end this here.
And, open another thread under technical / development forum, for implementation related help / tracking.