Quote from: zathras on September 26, 2013, 01:29:12 AM

Quote from: dacoinminster on September 25, 2013, 11:12:51 PM

Holy crap! Tachikoma strikes again! Shocked

Did you see the post I JUST MADE about how to do thin clients?! It's like you're reading my mind! (Are you?)

Again, nice work Tachikoma

Prior to these recent posts I have been explicitly avoiding using remote sources for data. Forgive the relative naivety of this question if it comes across that way (I'm fairly new to cryptocurrencies) but would this not be considered a form of centralization? And is that considered acceptable for Mastercoin given it's the presentation layer we're centralizing not the protocol?

Perhaps given recent discussion it may be worthwhile adding this option to the Masterchest desktop wallet also (sorry Tachikoma/JR, not meaning to poach your ideas but they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!!!). Currently in my desktop wallet settings panel users configure their connection to a bitcoind/bitcoinqt server but it would actually be quite a small amount of work to add in another option to use masterchest.info as a data source if the blockchain is not available locally (especially since they use the same transaction engine/data structures). If Tachikoma and I were to standardize a JSON-RPC API then we could offer users a choice of web services for remote data sources which would be even better.

As always appreciate comments/feedback - thanks

I personally don't think centralisation for Mastercoin is that much of a problem; mainly because there is no intercommunication between Mastercoin clients.
However I really think we should have both thick and thin clients. Thick clients help decentralise Bitcoin and are not reliant on outside sources. Not everybody will be comfortable with a client talking to remote servers. I would suggest you keep working on a version that communicates with a local Bitcoin-qt/d so we have both types of clients from the start.