+gary
Electrum also has a daemon for merchants.
Well, I suggest taking it up with Thomas directly. A thread here won't do much.
Considering the dislike of
Java that exist reflexively in much of the non-java community and the
greater ease of deployment and the integration of type-2 split key
management
I'm hoping that MultiBit Merchant will provide something similar based
on bcj, ie, you don't have to actually be a Java developer to use it,
it can just talk to your app via POSTs and GETs.
WRT deterministic wallets, yes, right now that's indeed a competitive
advantage of Electrum. So much code to write, so little time.
Generally for thin clients— a lying server can make clients think
they've received confirmed payments they haven't, and unless the
client is constructed to be a bit less thin a lying server can lie
about input values and cause thin clients to spend large values to
fees.
Yes indeed. This also gives [hacked] server operators a way to steal
money from users without private keys, they can get clients to create
some very high fee transactions and then provide them directly to a
miner who promises to cut them in (or they can mine themselves, of
course).
Beyond that the protocol between the clients and servers is
unauthenticated cleartext JSON in TCP.
I thought it used SSL. Maybe I'm thinking of BCCAPI which is a similar approach.
that the payment is unconfirmed. There is a pro mode, that shows
'processing' for unconfirmed transactions
I think communicating transaction confidence to users is something of
an open UI design problem right now. I agree that hiding it entirely
seems suboptimal, but in reality explaining what the risks are for a
given number confirmations is difficult. Given the lack of actually
reported double-spends against unconfirmed transactions, I can
understand this choice, even if I wouldn't recommend it.
My only question is will they know this because we as a community and
the authors of the thin clients provided clear explanations and
appropriate caution
Well, I pushed for English-text explanations of clients on bitcoin.org
rather than a feature matrix, for this kind of reason :) Unfortunately
the current texts are too small to really give a detailed explanation
of the security models involved. It may be worth adding one-liners
that link to a page explaining different security models (full, SPV,
superlight).
One thing I'm really hoping we can find and get agreement on is
somebody clueful and trustworthy to work on the bitcoin.org website.
Bitcoin, the project, needs a stronger voice than it currently has,
partly to speak about such issues. For instance, an FAQ that isn't on
the wiki would be good. And a simple Welcome to Bitcoin flow on the
bitcoin.org website that guides people to appropriate clients, teaches
them the security basics, etc, would be excellent.
--
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
