[ANN] [SFR] SaffronCoin | Latest Version - 1.4.2/2.6.2 | Mandatory Wallet Update

[lin0sspice]

My is : Pho_Tai

But cant read message.
I just try with cryptoholic11 , on irc.

[cryptoholic11]

Its working fine for me.

[saffroncoin]

My is : Pho_Tai

But cant read message.
I just try with cryptoholic11 , on irc.

Got your Test Message Pho! Good to know you got it working!

[saffroncoin]

Enjoying the wallet people? Share your experiences so we can further improve it!

[jdebunt]

A small new article :

http://www.cryptoarticles.com/crypto-news/saffroncoin-self-destructing-messages-built-in-gui-block-explorer-and-more

Please share

[cryptoholic11]

A small new article :

http://www.cryptoarticles.com/crypto-news/saffroncoin-self-destructing-messages-built-in-gui-block-explorer-and-more

Please share

Nice article Jean! Much appreciated

[djnocide]

We can now proudly say that we have raised the bar for innovative wallets and we now probably have the best and most feature-packed wallet!

You made the coin more centralized and vulnerable. Plus it looks terrible.

Why is it more centralized and vulnerable?

[Coin_Viking]

We can now proudly say that we have raised the bar for innovative wallets and we now probably have the best and most feature-packed wallet!

You made the coin more centralized and vulnerable. Plus it looks terrible.

Why is it more centralized and vulnerable?

Vald is confusing what centralization means with respect to the security of the saffroncoin blockchain and pow network. The saffroncoin network, the multi-algo process for pow etc all ensure as much decentralization and distribution as possible. This is by design. Pooling peripheral tools and features into a wallet client does not compromise the blockchain and hashing network as they are disparate things and only part of the growing infrastructure/ecosystem that is being build around Saffrocoin to support it and enhance its usefulness.

To the point he makes insofar as it "looking terrible" well everyone has their opinion, but perhaps he's not familiar with the notion of "beta" or that coin devs arent some rich companies with teams of artists and UI design specialists that can push out products that are designed to sell units. The devs are hard working, and want to produce results in the form of functionally and additive updates, further building around the coin to support it. First comes the new features, then future updates will offer progressively cleaner UIs. Expecting google level UIs off the start from devs whom derive no salaries from their hard work is ridiculous. What they ARE doing is producing compelling new feature, tools, services at a pace that should be making all of crypto take notice.

Awesome job devs, keep up the great work.

[saffroncoin]

We can now proudly say that we have raised the bar for innovative wallets and we now probably have the best and most feature-packed wallet!

You made the coin more centralized and vulnerable. Plus it looks terrible.

Why is it more centralized and vulnerable?

Vald is confusing what centralization means with respect to the security of the saffroncoin blockchain and pow network. The saffroncoin network, the multi-algo process for pow etc all ensure as much decentralization and distribution as possible. This is by design. Pooling peripheral tools and features into a wallet client does not compromise the blockchain and hashing network as they are disparate things and only part of the growing infrastructure/ecosystem that is being build around Saffrocoin to support it and enhance its usefulness.

To the point he makes insofar as it "looking terrible" well everyone has their opinion, but perhaps he's not familiar with the notion of "beta" or that coin devs arent some rich companies with teams of artists and UI design specialists that can push out products that are designed to sell units. The devs are hard working, and want to produce results in the form of functionally and additive updates, further building around the coin to support it. First comes the new features, then future updates will offer progressively cleaner UIs. Expecting google level UIs off the start from devs whom derive no salaries from their hard work is ridiculous. What they ARE doing is producing compelling new feature, tools, services at a pace that should be making all of crypto take notice.

Awesome job devs, keep up the great work.

Thanks Nicolas. Regarding the UI, Vlad has his own opinion. We give what the majority wants and not what 1 person wants. The majority loves this and that is how it will be. How we are different from other coins is that we have 2 wallets. For people like Vlad who think this is "terrible", they can always use the classic wallet. Other coins who develop some special features have just 1 wallet. So whether people like it or not they have to use that wallet. We are more community-centric and hence provided options for users to choose their own wallet. The classic wallet will not be forgotten and it will receive all major updates.

Now what he said about "centralized", i don't think he understands how SFRMS works. Many people just think that complete decentralization means absolute privacy and security. That is completely wrong.
Vlad I have updated how SFRMS works on the first page. Please read that to understand. If we had developed the messaging service on top of the blockchain which you call as "decentralized", everything would be public since the blockchain is public. Also the message deletion would not be possible since the entire blockchain would have to roll back and delete the messages. So what would be the use of providing a messaging system without any privacy,security and anonymity? There are many clients for that.
We will also expand POOF! to include more anonymous data to be sent. All this can't happen by depending on the blockchain. We need to evolve with time and provide more secure applications.

Regarding "vulnerabilities", i seriously do not know what makes you think that. Unless ofcourse your system is infected with a Virus and that effects the wallet. All features are well secured. In the final release we will implement a secure tunnel.

We have put in a lot of thought in developing this system taking in account various criteria and situations. Also this is a Beta version. There will be many improvements in the final version.

Hope many others who thought the same like Vlad can read this post and understand that "decentralization" does not necessarily mean "complete security and privacy". Also POOF! is more secure and anonymous as an independent product rather than being built on top of the blockchain which is completely public and would provide no privacy for your messages.

[cryptoholic11]

Guys, 1 glance at Valds post history, and you will see that all he does is bash, disrespect, belittle and FUD other coins, devs and members. The dude obviously lives a miserable insecure existence, ignoring might be an option.

[Coin_Viking]

Been away from the boards here for a little bit, so just trying to catch up, I like seeing the activity and members of the community providing truly positive things, whether ideas, comments, helping out other out on hardware etc.. and of course the fantastic dev updates. Soi if I've missed any older posts directed at me, let me know on what page and I'll go check them out.

I have seen Vips comment on possibly altering/looking at the amount of daily coin minting. In the past to create a more realistic amount of coin created on a daily basis, the avg amount of time to find a block reward was increased to 90secs. One thing that is important to note is that due to the nature of the multi-algo approach for pow on any given day and as assured by the independent difficulties they each possess, the five algo will create a five-way split of the total minted coins. So if 65k coins are created a day, then only 1/5 can possibly go to an individual algo, which naturally is then split up and distributed to the miners of that algo based on hashing capabilities. It does mean that no single miner can really obtain much on a daily basis even if he/she had the dominant hashrate for any particular algo. This is wonderful for the purposes of maximising distribution of coins across the various miners. Though I dont doubt some may have sha and gpu miners but I doubt someone out there is dumping large amount of coins on the daily is hard to envision. More than likely dumps occur from trader (not investors.. there is a difference) that either take profit from lower buys or even cut their looses just to bounce to the latest coin on the upswing in hopes of "riding the waves". At this time I don't think we have the "big" miners nor are we on any of the large multipools (that im aware of). To counter that, one has to convert traders into investors, increase volume/demand overtime.. which is something that will take time.

That being said, early discussions when the 90secs what chosen, some alternate options had naturally surfaced each with their positives and negatives. Were we as a community ever to decide and ask the dev to move to a longer avg blocktime Id want to be sure we are doing it to find the best possible balance between mining and investing AND not simply a way to force the value up. Extend the blocktime to long and you cripple any profitability to mine which is not very beneficial for a robust and vibrant network and more or less has the same effect of a halving (price may not rise but you still loose half the miners). Naturally a correction to optimize or find saffrons true "sweet spot" could result in the value of saffrons to organically rise and markets react and confirm/support the action taken.

I concede that i am not an expect in macroeconomics and have always had this idea that coin should grow in an organic way via increased mining difficulty from an influx of miners resulting in harder ROIs necessitating their purchase. But certainly if many seems concern with the daily minting them perhaps we have yet to find the right balance.

So I suggest the following (comments appreciated):  In a future wallet update, the avg blocktime would be increased from 90seconds to 180 seconds effectively reducing the daily minting by half. As a concession, when the halving does occur in a year from now, dropping the rewards per block by half, the speed for block discovery would be sped up back to 90secs effectively cancelling out the impact of the scheduled halving. This would result in still providing the newly lowered daily minting but at the benefit of an increased block speed which will be better as over the next year we are surely going to see merchant being interested in saffroncoin. Basically we ensure a scare currency, without compromising the network with a large shift and when the scheduled halving takes place, the sped up the transactions speeds will better support the merchant and users.

What do you guys think?

[saffroncoin]

We can now proudly say that we have raised the bar for innovative wallets and we now probably have the best and most feature-packed wallet!

You made the coin more centralized and vulnerable. Plus it looks terrible.

Why is it more centralized and vulnerable?

Vald is confusing what centralization means with respect to the security of the saffroncoin blockchain and pow network. The saffroncoin network, the multi-algo process for pow etc all ensure as much decentralization and distribution as possible. This is by design.

Pooling peripheral tools and features into a wallet client does not compromise the blockchain and hashing network as they are disparate things and only part of the growing infrastructure/ecosystem that is being build around Saffrocoin to support it and enhance its usefulness.

Yes, but it renders the user insecure. What if the explorer is compromised? What if the dev goes rogue?

To the point he makes insofar as it "looking terrible" well everyone has their opinion, but perhaps he's not familiar with the notion of "beta" or that coin devs arent some rich companies with teams of artists and UI design specialists that can push out products that are designed to sell units. The devs are hard working, and want to produce results in the form of functionally and additive updates, further building around the coin to support it. First comes the new features, then future updates will offer progressively cleaner UIs. Expecting google level UIs off the start from devs whom derive no salaries from their hard work is ridiculous. What they ARE doing is producing compelling new feature, tools, services at a pace that should be making all of crypto take notice.

Awesome job devs, keep up the great work.

Devs are hard working? They ripped all the main code, googled some algos, and then put in some 'features' that rely on external nodes. (Which flies in the face of basic BTC principals of not relying on external actors) They do more than most devs, but you're glorifying them far too much, as if they're building PayPal's backend inside a garage.

In terms of UI, is it really that hard to change the background color of an image? I know how to do that from year 1 CS.

Oh mate. Many of us hardly slept developing the various features SFR underwent these past 2 months. And you question our hardwork? Well then why hasn't any other wallet implemented features what we have? The Bitcoin code for QT wallet does not allow SFR features to be implemented out of the box. That is the reason you don't see the features SFR has on other wallets. We coded a lot of stuff from scratch to enable the QT wallet to display these kind of features.
If you do not like external nodes, why do you use any platform that uses it. If you have a better idea to implement POOF! then please do share it rather than trolling. I have already explained in detail the blockchain is public. POOF! features will not work on it.

Since you are/was a CS student, i am all ears if you can implement a more anonymous and secure system than POOF! Also you are bothered about a background-image ? Lol.
It never crossed my mind to change it. Also this is "Beta". Since you mentioned it, we will change it to something more appealing. But then you should also ask the same question to the original developers of the Bitcoin Wallet.

[saffroncoin]

If this is a beta version, then it should be on the testnet. Why say something is in beta when people are putting money on the line? Nonsense.

Huh? Dude the wallet is in beta. Not the coin. If the core of the coin was in beta then ofcourse it would run on a testnet.

Just because the wallet feature is in Beta, why should the coin be run on Testnet? This is not a hardfork. Doesn't make any sense.  I guess you do not understand even how the Bitcoin Protocol works. The stable wallet is also available. This beta is only for those that want a first hand on this wallet. The beta wallet DOES NOT AFFECT the coin.

Only SFRMS is in Beta. Not the entire wallet.!


Edit: Do you know Gmail was in Beta for 2 years and so was Orkut. But people still used it on a large scale and well put their "money" in it.

[saffroncoin]

Been away from the boards here for a little bit, so just trying to catch up, I like seeing the activity and members of the community providing truly positive things, whether ideas, comments, helping out other out on hardware etc.. and of course the fantastic dev updates. Soi if I've missed any older posts directed at me, let me know on what page and I'll go check them out.

I have seen Vips comment on possibly altering/looking at the amount of daily coin minting. In the past to create a more realistic amount of coin created on a daily basis, the avg amount of time to find a block reward was increased to 90secs. One thing that is important to note is that due to the nature of the multi-algo approach for pow on any given day and as assured by the independent difficulties they each possess, the five algo will create a five-way split of the total minted coins. So if 65k coins are created a day, then only 1/5 can possibly go to an individual algo, which naturally is then split up and distributed to the miners of that algo based on hashing capabilities. It does mean that no single miner can really obtain much on a daily basis even if he/she had the dominant hashrate for any particular algo. This is wonderful for the purposes of maximising distribution of coins across the various miners. Though I dont doubt some may have sha and gpu miners but I doubt someone out there is dumping large amount of coins on the daily is hard to envision. More than likely dumps occur from trader (not investors.. there is a difference) that either take profit from lower buys or even cut their looses just to bounce to the latest coin on the upswing in hopes of "riding the waves". At this time I don't think we have the "big" miners nor are we on any of the large multipools (that im aware of). To counter that, one has to convert traders into investors, increase volume/demand overtime.. which is something that will take time.

That being said, early discussions when the 90secs what chosen, some alternate options had naturally surfaced each with their positives and negatives. Were we as a community ever to decide and ask the dev to move to a longer avg blocktime Id want to be sure we are doing it to find the best possible balance between mining and investing AND not simply a way to force the value up. Extend the blocktime to long and you cripple any profitability to mine which is not very beneficial for a robust and vibrant network and more or less has the same effect of a halving (price may not rise but you still loose half the miners). Naturally a correction to optimize or find saffrons true "sweet spot" could result in the value of saffrons to organically rise and markets react and confirm/support the action taken.

I concede that i am not an expect in macroeconomics and have always had this idea that coin should grow in an organic way via increased mining difficulty from an influx of miners resulting in harder ROIs necessitating their purchase. But certainly if many seems concern with the daily minting them perhaps we have yet to find the right balance.

So I suggest the following (comments appreciated):  In a future wallet update, the avg blocktime would be increased from 90seconds to 180 seconds effectively reducing the daily minting by half. As a concession, when the halving does occur in a year from now, dropping the rewards per block by half, the speed for block discovery would be sped up back to 90secs effectively cancelling out the impact of the scheduled halving. This would result in still providing the newly lowered daily minting but at the benefit of an increased block speed which will be better as over the next year we are surely going to see merchant being interested in saffroncoin. Basically we ensure a scare currency, without compromising the network with a large shift and when the scheduled halving takes place, the sped up the transactions speeds will better support the merchant and users.

What do you guys think?

180 seconds would be too much. It is even more than LTC. But people didn't mind it because LTC was launched much before and was much faster compared to BTC's 10 mins.
People nowadays like faster block times ranging from 30-150 secs.
The block time variation is very interesting. It can help the coin in long term.

[Coin_Viking]

Thanks Nicolas. Regarding the UI, Vlad has his own opinion. We give what the majority wants and not what 1 person wants. The majority loves this and that is how it will be. How we are different from other coins is that we have 2 wallets. For people like Vlad who think this is "terrible", they can always use the classic wallet. Other coins who develop some special features have just 1 wallet. So whether people like it or not they have to use that wallet. We are more community-centric and hence provided options for users to choose their own wallet. The classic wallet will not be forgotten and it will receive all major updates.

Yeesh. I was just saying, you could change the background color a little bit. When you look at the wallets of other coins like SC, or PIGGY (First ones that come to mind) you should realize that your UI is really not a bragging point.

Now what he said about "centralized", i don't think he understands how SFRMS works. Many people just think that complete decentralization means absolute privacy and security. That is completely wrong.

No, I was talking about other features that rely on external, centralized nodes: E.g. Price checking (Not so much of an issue) Block explorer (Much more of an issue)... etc.

Vlad I have updated how SFRMS works on the first page. Please read that to understand. If we had developed the messaging service on top of the blockchain which you call as "decentralized", everything would be public since the blockchain is public. Also the message deletion would not be possible since the entire blockchain would have to roll back and delete the messages. So what would be the use of providing a messaging system without any privacy,security and anonymity? There are many clients for that.
We will also expand POOF! to include more anonymous data to be sent. All this can't happen by depending on the blockchain. We need to evolve with time and provide more secure applications.

Yes, you explain how to USE it, but you do not explain how it WORKS. I am looking forward to the whitepaper on POOF/SFRMS, unless I missed it.

Regarding "vulnerabilities", i seriously do not know what makes you think that. Unless ofcourse your system is infected with a Virus and that effects the wallet. All features are well secured. In the final release we will implement a secure tunnel.

You cannot promise this. I'm sorry, but there's no way you can be 100% sure that your block explorer is secure. I haven't read the code yet for how you handle price checking, but you better have some damn good error handling.

Just to be clear, this is my main contention.

We have put in a lot of thought in developing this system taking in account various criteria and situations. Also this is a Beta version. There will be many improvements in the final version.

If this is a beta version, then it should be on the testnet. Why say something is in beta when people are putting money on the line? Nonsense.

Hope many others who thought the same like Vlad can read this post and understand that "decentralization" does not necessarily mean "complete security and privacy". Also POOF! is more secure and anonymous as an independent product rather than being built on top of the blockchain which is completely public and would provide no privacy for your messages.

Decentralization means the ability to act without having to trust external nodes. Even bitcoin does not TRULY fit that definition, since it requires no individual agent to reach 50% +1.

I don't understand how POOF is different than regular message signing, but again, this will probably be included in a whitepaper down the line so we don't need to bring it up.

Guys, 1 glance at Valds post history, and you will see that all he does is bash, disrespect, belittle and FUD other coins, devs and members. The dude obviously lives a miserable insecure existence, ignoring might be an option.

Lol. Good rebuttal.

In regards to the "beta" tag.. Google mail was in "beta" for a couple years. Just saying. This whole discussion is somewhat odd to me, since we are talking about peripheral services and not the blockchain or PoW network itself. The Saffron guys are trying to do it "in-house" and create an intergrated ecosystem around their coin. Bitcoin have thousands of companies creating centralized products that use bitcoin as their backbone. Totally agree with you that crypto shoul dbe decentralized and distributed but thats is for the blockchain and network itself, the services and tools using the blockchain is a completelly different story. Maybe etherium? is attempting to created everyhting via the blockchain but idk. Crypto is the currency but the products/apps/services using it like I said is a different animal entirely as far as I see it. This is my take.  

[djnocide]

We can now proudly say that we have raised the bar for innovative wallets and we now probably have the best and most feature-packed wallet!

You made the coin more centralized and vulnerable. Plus it looks terrible.

Why is it more centralized and vulnerable?

Vald is confusing what centralization means with respect to the security of the saffroncoin blockchain and pow network. The saffroncoin network, the multi-algo process for pow etc all ensure as much decentralization and distribution as possible. This is by design. Pooling peripheral tools and features into a wallet client does not compromise the blockchain and hashing network as they are disparate things and only part of the growing infrastructure/ecosystem that is being build around Saffrocoin to support it and enhance its usefulness.

To the point he makes insofar as it "looking terrible" well everyone has their opinion, but perhaps he's not familiar with the notion of "beta" or that coin devs arent some rich companies with teams of artists and UI design specialists that can push out products that are designed to sell units. The devs are hard working, and want to produce results in the form of functionally and additive updates, further building around the coin to support it. First comes the new features, then future updates will offer progressively cleaner UIs. Expecting google level UIs off the start from devs whom derive no salaries from their hard work is ridiculous. What they ARE doing is producing compelling new feature, tools, services at a pace that should be making all of crypto take notice.

Awesome job devs, keep up the great work.

Thanks Nicolas. Regarding the UI, Vlad has his own opinion. We give what the majority wants and not what 1 person wants. The majority loves this and that is how it will be. How we are different from other coins is that we have 2 wallets. For people like Vlad who think this is "terrible", they can always use the classic wallet. Other coins who develop some special features have just 1 wallet. So whether people like it or not they have to use that wallet. We are more community-centric and hence provided options for users to choose their own wallet. The classic wallet will not be forgotten and it will receive all major updates.

Now what he said about "centralized", i don't think he understands how SFRMS works. Many people just think that complete decentralization means absolute privacy and security. That is completely wrong.
Vlad I have updated how SFRMS works on the first page. Please read that to understand. If we had developed the messaging service on top of the blockchain which you call as "decentralized", everything would be public since the blockchain is public. Also the message deletion would not be possible since the entire blockchain would have to roll back and delete the messages. So what would be the use of providing a messaging system without any privacy,security and anonymity? There are many clients for that.
We will also expand POOF! to include more anonymous data to be sent. All this can't happen by depending on the blockchain. We need to evolve with time and provide more secure applications.

Regarding "vulnerabilities", i seriously do not know what makes you think that. Unless ofcourse your system is infected with a Virus and that effects the wallet. All features are well secured. In the final release we will implement a secure tunnel.

We have put in a lot of thought in developing this system taking in account various criteria and situations. Also this is a Beta version. There will be many improvements in the final version.

Hope many others who thought the same like Vlad can read this post and understand that "decentralization" does not necessarily mean "complete security and privacy". Also POOF! is more secure and anonymous as an independent product rather than being built on top of the blockchain which is completely public and would provide no privacy for your messages.

Thanks for the answers guys

[Coin_Viking]

Been away from the boards here for a little bit, so just trying to catch up, I like seeing the activity and members of the community providing truly positive things, whether ideas, comments, helping out other out on hardware etc.. and of course the fantastic dev updates. Soi if I've missed any older posts directed at me, let me know on what page and I'll go check them out.

I have seen Vips comment on possibly altering/looking at the amount of daily coin minting. In the past to create a more realistic amount of coin created on a daily basis, the avg amount of time to find a block reward was increased to 90secs. One thing that is important to note is that due to the nature of the multi-algo approach for pow on any given day and as assured by the independent difficulties they each possess, the five algo will create a five-way split of the total minted coins. So if 65k coins are created a day, then only 1/5 can possibly go to an individual algo, which naturally is then split up and distributed to the miners of that algo based on hashing capabilities. It does mean that no single miner can really obtain much on a daily basis even if he/she had the dominant hashrate for any particular algo. This is wonderful for the purposes of maximising distribution of coins across the various miners. Though I dont doubt some may have sha and gpu miners but I doubt someone out there is dumping large amount of coins on the daily is hard to envision. More than likely dumps occur from trader (not investors.. there is a difference) that either take profit from lower buys or even cut their looses just to bounce to the latest coin on the upswing in hopes of "riding the waves". At this time I don't think we have the "big" miners nor are we on any of the large multipools (that im aware of). To counter that, one has to convert traders into investors, increase volume/demand overtime.. which is something that will take time.

That being said, early discussions when the 90secs what chosen, some alternate options had naturally surfaced each with their positives and negatives. Were we as a community ever to decide and ask the dev to move to a longer avg blocktime Id want to be sure we are doing it to find the best possible balance between mining and investing AND not simply a way to force the value up. Extend the blocktime to long and you cripple any profitability to mine which is not very beneficial for a robust and vibrant network and more or less has the same effect of a halving (price may not rise but you still loose half the miners). Naturally a correction to optimize or find saffrons true "sweet spot" could result in the value of saffrons to organically rise and markets react and confirm/support the action taken.

I concede that i am not an expect in macroeconomics and have always had this idea that coin should grow in an organic way via increased mining difficulty from an influx of miners resulting in harder ROIs necessitating their purchase. But certainly if many seems concern with the daily minting them perhaps we have yet to find the right balance.

So I suggest the following (comments appreciated):  In a future wallet update, the avg blocktime would be increased from 90seconds to 180 seconds effectively reducing the daily minting by half. As a concession, when the halving does occur in a year from now, dropping the rewards per block by half, the speed for block discovery would be sped up back to 90secs effectively cancelling out the impact of the scheduled halving. This would result in still providing the newly lowered daily minting but at the benefit of an increased block speed which will be better as over the next year we are surely going to see merchant being interested in saffroncoin. Basically we ensure a scare currency, without compromising the network with a large shift and when the scheduled halving takes place, the sped up the transactions speeds will better support the merchant and users.

What do you guys think?

180 seconds would be too much. It is even more than LTC. But people didn't mind it because LTC was launched much before and was much faster compared to BTC's 10 mins.
People nowadays like faster block times ranging from 30-150 secs.
The block time variation is very interesting. It can help the coin in long term.

180secs. was the high end, but yeah it is slow. like you said, litecoin is at 2.5mins.. so is darkcoin (I think?). A 2 min blocktime or something around this could be interesting. I think some even suggested dropping the total 111million total to something lower, but that would hardfork to a new coin (like CAI to CAIx type scenario) if I'm not mistaken. besides 111million only looks big at the outset but it will only reach this 70+ years from now, I dont see it as cause for alarm at all and it a respectable "grand total" esp given the long pow timeframe.

[saffroncoin]

If this is a beta version, then it should be on the testnet. Why say something is in beta when people are putting money on the line? Nonsense.

Huh? Dude the wallet is in beta. Not the coin. If the core of the coin was in beta then ofcourse it would run on a testnet.

Just because the wallet feature is in Beta, why should the coin be run on Testnet? This is not a hardfork. Doesn't make any sense.  I guess you do not understand even how the Bitcoin Protocol works. The stable wallet is also available. This beta is only for those that want a first hand on this wallet. The beta wallet DOES NOT AFFECT the coin.

Only SFRMS is in Beta. Not the entire wallet.!

Hmm, yes, sorry, that was my lapse in judgement. And yes, I definitely do not fully understand the bitcoin protocol. I am learning every day.

But please answer this: How will you ensure that the users are secure when connecting to price check, or to the block explorer?

Edit: Do you know Gmail was in Beta for 2 years and so was Orkut. But people still used it on a large scale and well put their "money" in it.

Yes, that was a lapse in judgement.

Can you reply to my other contentions?

If you have knowledge on networks, there are two types of requests, GET and POST. The exchange data is a publicly available API which uses GET request.
In a GET request, no info is given but only retrieved. Users are not "connecting" to the price check or the "explorer". All these are GET requests and loaded directly from the appropriate websites.
Every feature that downloads content from the Web, has an independant container. Example, the price check and explorer.
The beauty of implementing such a technology is in case for example the Bittrex exchange is hacked, and some malicious code enters into the exchange API. Even though your wallet is accessing that API, that malicious code cannot affect the entire wallet or the system unlike a web browser that can install extensions infecting your entire computer.

All containers are independant. We are not saying this is 100% secure. Nothing in the world is 100% secure. If your system has access to the outside network, there are many ways it can get affected. We are just trying to increase the security as much as we can.

Independent containers increase security. The same can happen to a block explorer. But these are all one-way displays. So it wouldn't matter.
Also phishing attack is negligible. Because we embed the website in the code.
For example to display the block explorer, we embedded the explorer's website url into the code so a fake url can't be shown to you. But then someone can hack the block explorer website and display some other content. But the users security is in place since no info of their's is given out since all this is a GET request.
If you are worried about coins being lost, nothing of this can happen because all are independent containers. The malicious code CANNOT have access to your wallet.

[Coin_Viking]

This whole discussion is somewhat odd to me, since we are talking about peripheral services and not the blockchain or PoW network itself.  The Saffron guys are trying to do it "in-house" and create an intergrated ecosystem around their coin. Bitcoin have thousands of companies creating centralized products that use bitcoin as their backbone.

We are talking about built-in peripheral services that are endorsed by the devs you will find no such thing done by the active developers of BTC. I think this opens up a massive can of worms.

Totally agree with you that crypto shoul dbe decentralized and distributed but thats is for the blockchain and network itself, the services and tools using the blockchain is a completelly different story. Maybe etherium? is attempting to created everyhting via the blockchain but idk. Crypto is the currency but the products/apps/services using it like I said is a different animal entirely as far as I see it. This is my take.  

Ethereum is awesome, but it's never put alongside Bitcoin-QT and made interchangeable.

I know SFR has a classic wallet which doesn't have these vulnerabilities, but the 'integrated wallet' for SFR different than Ethereum, not only because the latter has significantly more pressure and security than the former (As well as real names attached), but because it is decentralized to the same degree as Bitcoin-QT. (AFAIK, I'm not TOO familiar with Ethereum)

I know who they are, I'll hunt them down if ever lol (kidding). From my observations, this hands off approach dev typically take I feel is what has precisely been preventing cryptos from acheiving more than what they have done so far. I know it seems counter to the crypto culture but at some point the prevailing dev strategy needs to evolve and i have been a proponent of pushing further into the realm of allowing/advising the devs to create an intergrated platform.. because lets face it other than bitcoin, there are no companies that will step in and do it so how can a coin possibly build from nothing? relying solely on the blockchain etc is a mistake, if you want adoption by mainstreet, the gen public you have to build the infrastructure, build services that are easy to use, are compelling etc to reduce friction for adoption etc. As these are peripheral services that sit on top of the blockchain and are not intergral to the blockchain itself they are therefor optional. The devs are steadfast in this that they are added layers but are OPTIONAL. should someone be uncomfortable with them, no problem, the classic wallet will always have the core wallet/network without the added feature. At that point, it become a user CHOICE and are not forced into anything.

[Coin_Viking]

Personally I don't know too many devs willing to take the time and answer questions and explains things as much as the saffron guys do. I do think Vald you are posing important questions, because others may feel like you do and do hope the answers being provided are offering some clarity. About the UI of the wallet, you seem like a design oriented person, you should design some layouts and send them to the devs, help them improve their product The goal is to make crypto ever better and we can only to this if we all come together to build something greater.