|
Alex Zee (OP)
|
 |
June 10, 2011, 10:05:28 PM
Last edit: June 18, 2011, 07:55:41 AM by AlexZ |
|
Fuck it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you see garbage posts (off-topic, trolling, spam, no point, etc.), use the "report to moderator" links. All reports are investigated, though you will rarely be contacted about your reports.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISA
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
 |
June 10, 2011, 10:32:50 PM |
|
wow. testing.....
|
|
|
|
|
ISA
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
June 10, 2011, 10:44:45 PM |
|
1) Edited Bitcoin.conf and added:
server=1
rpcconnect=SECRECT
rpcuser=SECRET_USER
rpcpassword=SECRECT_PASSWORD
rpcport=12345
2) Executed bitcoin_uri.exe and pressed ok.
No errors -> All seems to be fine
Result:
Firefox: Does not recognize the link ("Does not know how to open it"). I tried several restarts etc.
Chrome and IE9 have similar problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enmaku
|
|
June 10, 2011, 10:54:30 PM |
|
I am so installing this when I get home.
|
|
|
|
|
ISA
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
June 10, 2011, 10:57:20 PM |
|
"Sorry, malformed URI. ....." I'm running on a German Windows 7 |
|
|
|
|
ISA
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
June 10, 2011, 11:00:07 PM |
|
Check if there is a registry key "bitcoin" under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT.
Not there. |
|
|
|
|
ISA
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
June 10, 2011, 11:01:49 PM |
|
Well, obviously you need to use a correct URI, not a bunch of symbols I just typed  Haha. Ok works with a correct bitcoin address. Man I'm on blind copy&paste. Don't forget that  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISA
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
June 10, 2011, 11:17:02 PM |
|
Aha. Probably the permissions problem. Are you running the program from under the Administrator account? At least to install, it needs to write into registry.
YES! That did do the trick. Nice |
|
|
|
|
Serge
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 10, 2011, 11:20:41 PM |
|
very cool, something like this should be implemented in the official client
|
|
|
|
|
ISA
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
June 10, 2011, 11:21:40 PM |
|
Bitcoins sent!
Very nice.
It should start the Bitcoin client if it's not running...
|
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
June 11, 2011, 01:04:54 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vladimir
|
|
June 11, 2011, 07:20:00 AM
Last edit: June 11, 2011, 07:31:54 AM by Vladimir |
|
Bravo AlexZ, I wish we could get this into official client somehow. Let's get both URI schemes working concurrently. Anyone want to take bets on which URI scheme will be adopted by website operators if both are supported by official client? Just compare: 1. bitcoin:1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L?amount=x4X7and 2. bitcoin:/400/16rpY3LAf7kQFHzmMtB71eXTTTDLG5AWy3/I'd say option 2 is a clear winner P.S. Do not underestimate importance of decent URI handling. Edonkey's popularity and quick adoption to significant degree was due to its great edk2 URI scheme. Ask Jed if you do not believe me. I bet if we have this kind of URI handling both in windows and linux official client it will make bitcoin adoption to go much smoother. |
-
|
|
|
Luke-Jr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
June 11, 2011, 07:37:23 AM |
|
Of course option 2 is a winner when you're comparing two totally different things. Let's look at some REAL comparisons: 400 BTC (ie, yesterday)Standard bitcoin: URI: bitcoin:1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L?amount=400x8Vladimir's URI-like: bitcoin:/400/1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L/400 mBTC (ie, today)Standard bitcoin: URI: bitcoin:1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L?amount=400x5Vladimir's URI-like: bitcoin:/0.004/1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L/400 μBTC (ie, tomorrow A)Standard bitcoin: URI: bitcoin:1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L?amount=400x2Vladimir's URI-like: bitcoin:/0.000004/1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L/400 TBC (ie, tomorrow B)Standard bitcoin: URI: bitcoin:1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L?amount=x400x4Vladimir's URI-like: bitcoin:/0.67108864/1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L/400 Satoshis (ie, nerds?)Standard bitcoin: URI: bitcoin:1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L?amount=400x0Vladimir's URI-like: bitcoin:/0.00000004/1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L/Keep in mind, no humans have to read URIs, just software. And Vladimir's thing doesn't even fit with the generic URI formats. X-btc might be a contender with some work, though... |
|
|
|
|
Vladimir
|
|
June 11, 2011, 08:02:48 AM
Last edit: June 11, 2011, 08:41:26 AM by Vladimir |
|
|
-
|
|
|
generalunited
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
June 11, 2011, 08:22:41 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vladimir
|
|
June 11, 2011, 08:43:27 AM |
|
Introducing some privately owned domain into decentralised currency URI scheme, whether standard or not, does not look very appealing.
Nice try with a community infiltration attack though...
|
-
|
|
|
|
Vladimir
|
|
June 11, 2011, 09:28:47 AM |
|
Here is the latest iteration, we could simply emulate http URI, including "userinfo" part
btc://amount:payee@address/message , where
amount:payee@, :payee and /message are optional
examples:
btc://19bF4Xq2bJwVKzGmbq5pxmkgYkE1KnXngp
btc://0.02@19bF4Xq2bJwVKzGmbq5pxmkgYkE1KnXngp
btc://19bF4Xq2bJwVKzGmbq5pxmkgYkE1KnXngp/OK+RFC
btc://0.00:Vladimir@19bF4Xq2bJwVKzGmbq5pxmkgYkE1KnXngp/OK+RFC
btc://50.00@19bF4Xq2bJwVKzGmbq5pxmkgYkE1KnXngp/Really+Cool+RFC
btc://50.00:Vladimir@19bF4Xq2bJwVKzGmbq5pxmkgYkE1KnXngp/Really+Cool+RFC
btc://0.0000001:Vladimir@19bF4Xq2bJwVKzGmbq5pxmkgYkE1KnXngp/Your+RFC+Sucks
btc://100:Vladimir/19bF4Xq2bJwVKzGmbq5pxmkgYkE1KnXngp/I+will+pay+you+monthly?periodic=yes&period=monthly&howmany=12
most existing URI handling code will work with this with minimal (if any) changes
|
-
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
June 11, 2011, 03:09:01 PM |
|
Why do people insist on reinventing the wheel? The previous URI spec worked fine and was implemented in all clients in mainline except for the wx bitcoin client. There is also a pull request that has been sitting in github for that format forever https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/182. There is no advantage to this format over the old one, in fact, it makes it harder to read imho, and you can't specify a memo and not a name, as you can with the original, well-implemented one. Additionally, adding periodic payments falls way outside of the scope of any URI spec commit. |
|
|
|
|
