Jump to content
Berzeck

Wallet functionality

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, as you know we have an incredible list of features planned for this year, but it is a good practice to roll these features in steps. The first step (next release)

is to test the resolution independence of UI, it's usability and  most crucial, the first phase of the brand new framework with it's initial components.

 

So I am asking our supporters to define what is the minimum set of components that should be implemented around the new UI for the next version

 

For example :

   - Console

   - Configuration

   - Send coins

   - Receive coins

   - Last transactions report

 

Added :

  - Clear sign showing if a wallet is encrypted

  - Scale with keyboad

  - Start/Pause sync

 

What else ?

 

Remember that we will implement a lot more in the coming months so this list should be as short as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly would like dedicated buttons to scale the wallet. Some laptop touchpads are horrible.

Already done!, well .... the implementation  is not a button. You need to hold control and use the wheel mouse, this will scale up or down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is necessary to add the button a import and export the key..

And what about the comments for the transaction, you have managed to implement it?

 

It would also be nice to see the browser blocks explorer integrated directly into the wallet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is necessary to add the button a import and export the key..

And what about the comments for the transaction, you have managed to implement it?

 

It would also be nice to see the browser blocks explorer integrated directly into the wallet.

You mean Private key right ? the export should be to a text file ? (it seems obvious but  just want to be thorough)

Blockchain comments won't be implemented, i hope never for several reasons, first bloat and this alone has the potential to bring the network to it's knees if some one would act in bad faith. It's too risky..

Also we don't want to divert from BTC block chain too much, in this way we can leech BTC QA. The idea is to have a blockchain as similar as possible to BTC and build a lot of services and functionality around it.

BUT we can implement something similar using Pulzar and not directly on the block chain

 

Block explorer Inside wallet will definitely be implemented  at some point. But it won't be on next release.

 

Remember guys, for next release we need minimum set of requirements. Other features will be added in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean Private key right ? the export should be to a text file ? (it seems obvious but  just want to be thorough)

Yes, export can be done in a text file and should work in two directions. exports and imports.

it would be convenient.

 

I  no see the problem with security when sending comments along with the transaction.

Many other wallets already implemented it. just limit a size the  comment and add the ability to encrypt text.

I see only plus to this option.

The easiest way to say it is not safe and there is no need. Although the vote on the old forum, well showed that people want to see this option in your wallet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, export can be done in a text file and should work in two directions. exports and imports.

it would be convenient.

 

I  no see the problem with security when sending comments along with the transaction.

Many other wallets already implemented it. just limit a size the  comment and add the ability to encrypt text.

I see only plus to this option.

The easiest way to say it is not safe and there is no need. Although the vote on the old forum, well showed that people want to see this option in your wallet.

When messages were starting to be implemented (i wasn't on the team at that time) dev found a great potential for abuse. That's the reason  it wasn't implemented at all.

Broadly speaking is very bad idea to put non critical information on the chain, that is the reason that bigger coins with big teams don't allow that (it's not that they never think about it)

But as i said there may be a way to add comments using pulzar (not directly on the chain), in practice the experience should be similar.

 

Right now we need to think about just minimum set of features for next release, or we won't able to release for many months ... with time we will add all features that are possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When messages were starting to be implemented (i wasn't on the team at that time) dev found a great potential for abuse. That's the reason  it wasn't implemented at all.

Broadly speaking is very bad idea to put non critical information on the chain, that is the reason that bigger coins with big teams don't allow that (it's not that they never think about it)

But as i said there may be a way to add comments using pulzar (not directly on the chain), in practice the experience should be similar.

 

Right now we need to think about just minimum set of features for next release, or we won't able to release for many months ... with time we will add all features that are possible.

Of course the idea of using a separate blockchain for the message sounds more interesting.

Already today we see some messages for example bleep use technology P2P is not only to transmit the message but also for calls.

Ok, let's see how it be to implemented in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the idea of using a separate blockchain for the message sounds more interesting.

Already today we see some messages for example bleep use technology P2P is not only to transmit the message but also for calls.

Ok, let's see how it be to implemented in practice.

 

the problem with alternate blockchain is that thousands of kw will be wasted for non critical stuff, that can't scale.reasonable well. I will explain this a little further : a message is just pertinent to the sender and to the receiver and nobody else; putting it into the chain is like  having hundreds of thousands of 'backups' distributed on peoples PC's that don't and can't care about an specific message.

This is in harsh contrast to the ledger that is everybody's  business (otherwise it couldn't work)

In other words : if something is everybody's business -> put it into the chain

                         if something is just pertinent to specific parties -> use standard mechanism integrated with the blockchain as means of payment only.

 

With this argument is easy to infer that incorporating decentralized markets , videos, photos, conversations , etc inside the chain is not a good idea long term

If something is critical to a system the best way to handle it is to make it slim, light and secure. More complex the chain more probably a serious bug will be found  that can finish the coin for good.

We all like to think that BTC guys are just complacent about their coin so they are not 'innovating' fast enough, but if you dig deeper you would be able to see that it's not complacency, it is just extreme care.

I will put you an example, remember when we wanted to release 1.0.0 some months ago but we   missed release target by 2 weeks ( I think ) with a lot of problems ?

Internally there was a bug with the upgrade of openssl to a newer version, we were  lucky  that this bug was evident before release and took me two weeks to hunt it and solve it; it could have causes a lot of problems and pain.

 

Check this  link for example http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/33221963/(i don't remember if it is the same bug I solved in November but it is a good example) . It is extremely hard to detect a bug like this with a small team.

If btc block chain technology has already more than 6 years with tens of developers checking the code and bugs like this can appear, imagine what kind of bugs will be waiting to explode on those new block chain technologies developed by micro teams (if not by a single person)

They are risking a lot more than everybody think specially if they begin to scale.

This is the reason that we decided to leech all QA of BTC and making our chain as slim, light and reviewed as possible. In the extreme case  a bug is found on BTC chain technology  then hackers will probably attack btc first giving us time to search for the proper solution.

Is like we are using BTC as cannon fodder :D. In the future when we grow and with a big team of stable developers we will take more risks on block chain tech.

 

 

Having say that,  I promise that once framework is finished and well tested (this year), we will be very aggressive with new ideas and innovations. we will have messages implemented , chain explorer, prices, statistics , tips, charity, shops, etc etc ... the only thing we will define later is the order in which this things will be implemented.  

(And yes this time we will honour the voting :)   )

 

PD: Bittorrent technology is completely different than blockchain technology, with torrents data saving is completely voluntary,  PC's need  explicit acknowledge of what data they want to store, and then  masters servers (trackers) stores  which pc is storing which data.

With block chain technology all data is stored in all full node clients, no full node can chose what part of the chain they want to store so no master servers are needed in expense that everybody stores data from everybody..

The effect of this is that blockchain technology data is a lot more resilient in expense to a lot more wasted resources.

 

Incorporating some services in the future that use torrent technology is a good idea  ( the right tool for the job)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not suggest you use a secondary circuit to record all the information in the database.

If we are talking about an individual expansion as plugin it might just be the integration of P2P instant messengers in the wallet.

Of course this is a controversial decision from the point of view of safety and requires the test of time. but to the user it would have been interesting.

 

I think that necessary to connect the acceptable comments to the transaction, (ie that can be incorporated into the main chain, and recorded a total base) then it is possible to limit the size of 256 characters such comments there with a check for signs of illegal characters (tolerance b64 transfer code).

Comment 256 characters in length will not be able to hurt the wallet or the total blockchain.
like this example might look the encrypted comment for the transaction:
cod-text-7
RERFNzVDQ0M2NzcxRDRDOUNDRkYwNTE5MTY3RDFBOTlGNjU0RDI1QzZGOUZGMEMw
NkRCMzk3Qjc1OTA4REI1NTNDQkZGRkJFRkRFRjYxN0IzRDU2REFGRTJFMzkzNjA4
End-cod

It does not greatly increase the overall size and will allow merchants to have an additional and convenient tool in the transaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the seller and the buyer is aware of what is at stake.

But anyone who has an access key can always understand what is at stake and this information will always be in the public domain..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the seller and the buyer is aware of what is at stake.

But anyone who has an access key can always understand what is at stake and this information will always be in the public domain..

The information shouldn't be in public domain, that's the  point of having a key in the first place.No one should be able to read a message (otherwise it's useless as a messenger service and NSA friends will we happy) unless you have the key to decrypt it.

The same with buying goods. It's commonly agreed that people want their privacy, what an address buys is not public info, it is encrypted, so  the buyer and the seller are the only ones that know what has been purchased. This info is only relevant for 2 parties but is spread in thousands of computers

This won't prevent scams because there is no way the block chain can assure the buyer that he will receive his goods. The only thing one can agreed is  that the seller could be pretty sure that he has been paid, but this can be achieved without the need to bloat the chain anyway so what would be the point ? Worse yet  if a bug is found in the blockchain market it could bring down all network including the ledger.

 

Now compare this with the ledger, the network 'know' how much crypto has each address so that is public domain,  the network  can audit it because it 'knows' the concept of crypto, it can create it (mining) , but the network can't and shouldn't know that you bought a cell phone, or what a cell phone is, it doesn't know how to mine a cell phone and certainly it doesn't know how to audit it, the same with random messages.

 

If you are referring to the fact that putting on the block chain will give irrefutable evidence that a message was sent by someone for example, then you don't need block chain for that, you can use PGP like technology without copying your encrypted message on thousands of machines

Again we must use the right tool for the job.

 

P2P can be integrated and will be evaluated because if something is wrong with P2P network it won't affect the ledger which is after all the most important pillar of WDC and crypto existence.

 

About  controls : those only work if everybody uses the client, if some one wants to break havoc it would create custom messages without the client and without using Base 64 and  without respecting the 256 byte size and send them directly to every node. How about crafting a message of 4 gb size with kanjis ? it may crash the nodes and can give the possibility of a trivial DDOS attack. And this not taking into account that different countries may have different codec so the behaviour couldn't be determined. 

Of course all of this can (theoretically) be handled  on recipient nodes but it is very very difficult to check all the combinations, specially in the first try (there are still bugs discovered  in big  open source projects  with code produced  years ago. After all buffer overflow is the most common type of vulnerability worldwide ), a mistake like that can cost us the network in one sweep.

 

What i agree with you is that the functionality should be implemented 'somehow'. I already have an idea on how we can achieve this provided that both parties  use the newer wallets. but not at the block chain level

 

To finish this rant, I am delighted that most coins (and the  perception of crypto community right now ) want  to put everything into the block chain, i hope this trends continues for years if possible, because they are chasing the wrong target and will give us more time to put things that business really want ,  believe me, business don't want to put their database on thousands of computers encrypted or not, completely changing the way they store their data, they may even have to change their ERP solutions to do that. What  they want is a cheaper and safer alternative to transfer value and the tools to do this without being computer geniuses. That's our target

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,  I understand your position and I will wait for further perfection of the wallet..

 

P.s  But do not forget to add an icon to a lock in the next release (people need to see the wallet is encrypted or not)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already done!, well .... the implementation  is not a button. You need to hold control and use the wheel mouse, this will scale up or down.

 

e.g. I'm a traveling businessperson, there are a few transactions which need to be taken care of. I have a hard time reading stuff on the wallet. What do I do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,  I understand your position and I will wait for further perfection of the wallet..

 

P.s  But do not forget to add an icon to a lock in the next release (people need to see the wallet is encrypted or not)

Ahhh yes, i will add that. Thanks for remind me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×