Bitcoin Forum
December 02, 2016, 10:17:57 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Micropayment only client  (Read 2104 times)
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 24, 2012, 04:49:36 PM
 #1

I wonder if mass adoption could be sparked with a browser-friendly client that only allows a 1 BTC (or some arbitrary amount) wallet. It would only be used for micropayments. Advertising and websites could allow people to earn small amounts instead of mining. This might be something great for young people to purchase content rather than piracy. It could be upgradable to a full client for anyone over legal age.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
1480717077
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480717077

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480717077
Reply with quote  #2

1480717077
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
PrintCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524



View Profile WWW
January 24, 2012, 04:59:46 PM
 #2

I wonder if mass adoption could be sparked with a browser-friendly client that only allows a 1 BTC (or some arbitrary amount) wallet. It would only be used for micropayments. Advertising and websites could allow people to earn small amounts instead of mining. This might be something great for young people to purchase content rather than piracy. It could be upgradable to a full client for anyone over legal age.

I think instawallet fills in this nitch. I wouldn't trust them with any more than that (not judging them, but just the method of stroring private keys). I think they do a great job of living up to their name. The no-login url based system should be use my more services (I might do smackcoins.com's user management system like this).

Bitmessage.org: BM-2cT3oFVj68gugBD5JFvP3qmoBHWXJQ6ZkT
BTC Addr:18AA1hq6DVHn5WuK1fQhr5CdkqeG5Mj2ZL <--did you like my post? Send some encouragement here.
Print bitcoin bills: http://print.printcoins.com/
deepceleron
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile WWW
January 24, 2012, 05:02:22 PM
 #3

I wonder if mass adoption could be sparked with a browser-friendly client that only allows a 1 BTC (or some arbitrary amount) wallet. It would only be used for micropayments. Advertising and websites could allow people to earn small amounts instead of mining. This might be something great for young people to purchase content rather than piracy. It could be upgradable to a full client for anyone over legal age.
Don't think so...a clever 10 year old will just install whatever client they want. Bitcoin doesn't care if you are of a legal age, and works excellently even when others don't want you to be able to send money.

So I send the address 2BTC, and it explodes?

westkybitcoins
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!


View Profile
January 24, 2012, 05:17:08 PM
 #4

I wonder if mass adoption could be sparked with a browser-friendly client that only allows a 1 BTC (or some arbitrary amount) wallet. It would only be used for micropayments. Advertising and websites could allow people to earn small amounts instead of mining. This might be something great for young people to purchase content rather than piracy. It could be upgradable to a full client for anyone over legal age.
Don't think so...a clever 10 year old will just install whatever client they want. Bitcoin doesn't care if you are of a legal age, and works excellently even when others don't want you to be able to send money.

So I send the address 2BTC, and it explodes?

That was my concern. How do you prevent someone from sending too much to the wallet address?

Sure, the system could try to return any excess to the sending address(es), and hope they wont need to pay a transaction fee. That might work... until someone sends the 50-coin reward for a block to the address, leaving no address to send back to.

Bitcoin is the ultimate freedom test. It tells you who is giving lip service and who genuinely believes in it.
...
...
In the future, books that summarize the history of money will have a line that says, “and then came bitcoin.” It is the economic singularity. And we are living in it now. - Ryan Dickherber
...
...
ATTENTION BFL MINING NEWBS: Just got your Jalapenos in? Wondering how to get the most value for the least hassle? Give BitMinter a try! It's a smaller pool with a fair & low-fee payment method, lots of statistical feedback, and it's easier than EasyMiner! (Yes, we want your hashing power, but seriously, it IS the easiest pool to use! Sign up in seconds to try it!)
...
...
The idea that deflation causes hoarding (to any problematic degree) is a lie used to justify theft of value from your savings.
Costia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28



View Profile
January 24, 2012, 05:22:04 PM
 #5

I wonder if mass adoption could be sparked with a browser-friendly client that only allows a 1 BTC (or some arbitrary amount) wallet. It would only be used for micropayments. Advertising and websites could allow people to earn small amounts instead of mining. This might be something great for young people to purchase content rather than piracy. It could be upgradable to a full client for anyone over legal age.
Don't think so...a clever 10 year old will just install whatever client they want. Bitcoin doesn't care if you are of a legal age, and works excellently even when others don't want you to be able to send money.

So I send the address 2BTC, and it explodes?
no. it "donates" the extra BTC to the developers Smiley

a zero trust web interface to bitcoin could be an interesting idea - you can perform any transaction on the website , but all the keys and signing is done locally via script+HTML5. but then backups and lost wallets will be a pain in the ass

edit: can you set up a script that will require the site's key to use the BTC? so he will have 50 BTC in the account but can use only one per month or something
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
January 24, 2012, 05:28:13 PM
 #6

SOLVED!?

Simply call it a microprocessor stipulating that it's only for 1 BTC or less, but in reality it'll work for any amount, hence not breaking it. A new user would simply think they found a way to get around the restrictions. Think game code hacks. They're built it, but the user thinks he's getting something free.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 24, 2012, 05:32:19 PM
 #7

Maybe the sweepprivkey RPC command could be implemented to limit amounts so the client stays under the arbitrary balance. My point is that a micropayment-only browser plugin client is less threatening to people and may seed new entertainment business models. Hardcore gamers and such could adopt a larger limit, but they risk losing more from internet thieves.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
January 24, 2012, 05:46:09 PM
 #8

Seems utterly pointless to me...
Costia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28



View Profile
January 24, 2012, 05:52:07 PM
 #9

could be used as a "parental control" for gamer's parents
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 24, 2012, 06:05:19 PM
 #10

Seems utterly pointless to me...

So far bitcoin clients have been fairly secure because mostly internet savvy folks are using it. When it opens up to other users, if the clients are not absolutely 100% fool-proof, there will be key loggers, trojans, and viruses stealing wallets. It will scare folks off and henceforth require online bank type security to use through a centralized server. Limiting the size of the wallet for entertainment purposes limits the risk and lessens the fuel for news headline panics.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
istar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524


View Profile
January 24, 2012, 06:14:14 PM
 #11

You can limit the amount sent from the wallet not to it.
For example, limit it to send no more than 1 bitcoin per day/week.



Bitcoins - Because we should not pay to use our money
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
January 24, 2012, 06:15:52 PM
 #12

You can limit the amount sent from the wallet not to it.
For example, limit it to send no more than 1 bitcoin per day/week.


Fine! With a backdoor hack to increase that amount.
Costia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28



View Profile
January 24, 2012, 06:17:25 PM
 #13

no, you will have to pay them to increase the amount - it a new and exciting feature
MysteryMiner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910



View Profile
January 24, 2012, 07:02:51 PM
 #14

The idea of such client is pointless as hell.

You can send small amounts of coins with official client.

You can limit the amount you can send to 1BTC by having only 1BTC in your account.

Computer can be protected from malware by not running malware on the computer.

1LEaxxAh1LKFUvDKYVhiMEVAHRM7K5o7cF
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
January 24, 2012, 07:55:35 PM
 #15

Seems utterly pointless to me...

So far bitcoin clients have been fairly secure because mostly internet savvy folks are using it. When it opens up to other users, if the clients are not absolutely 100% fool-proof, there will be key loggers, trojans, and viruses stealing wallets. It will scare folks off and henceforth require online bank type security to use through a centralized server. Limiting the size of the wallet for entertainment purposes limits the risk and lessens the fuel for news headline panics.
On the same token, however, a limited wallet is a limited wallet.  How many people are going to say, "Hey, this Bitcoin thing is stupid - I can only have one of them at a time"?

Yes, it would limit risk, but it would also limit purchasing power, usability, and usefulness of the wallet.  Since the first impression is generally the most important one, in the user's mind, those things would be a limitation of Bitcoin as a whole, pushing them away from it.

Go ahead and make such a client (or have someone make it) if you really believe in it, but I think it's a bad idea.
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
January 24, 2012, 07:59:19 PM
 #16

imho URI support is much more important to make micropayments (and paying in general) less of a copy paste hassle.

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
MysteryMiner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910



View Profile
January 24, 2012, 08:17:00 PM
 #17

imho URI support is much more important to make micropayments (and paying in general) less of a copy paste hassle.
Yes, the Copy-Paste takes me whole 0.8 seconds, better bloat the official client. And from another side URI support is so easy, just bitcoin://bitcoinadress/amount/ or similar.

1LEaxxAh1LKFUvDKYVhiMEVAHRM7K5o7cF
jim618
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile WWW
January 24, 2012, 09:02:45 PM
 #18

@phelix - there is already protocol handler support for bitcoin URIs in MultiBit and Electrum.   IIRC there is a Satoshi client branch with it working too that the devs are testing and (presumably if they are happy with it) it is targeted for v0.6.

MultiBit HD   Lightweight desktop client.                    Bitcoin Solutions Ltd   Bespoke software. Consultancy.
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
January 25, 2012, 12:22:41 PM
 #19

@phelix - there is already protocol handler support for bitcoin URIs in MultiBit and Electrum.   IIRC there is a Satoshi client branch with it working too that the devs are testing and (presumably if they are happy with it) it is targeted for v0.6.

ahh, nice.

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
ThomasV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722



View Profile WWW
January 25, 2012, 12:27:37 PM
 #20

@phelix - there is already protocol handler support for bitcoin URIs in MultiBit and Electrum.   IIRC there is a Satoshi client branch with it working too that the devs are testing and (presumably if they are happy with it) it is targeted for v0.6.
I think we should try to have bitcoin URIs supported on the forum; it is the best way to spread their usage.
http://ecdsa.org/bitcoin_URIs.html

Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!