Quote from: 2112 on September 22, 2011, 05:41:48 AM

Quote from: bcforum on September 22, 2011, 03:51:33 AM

Does this solve your inversion of control problem?

No, it doesn't. My short example assumed that the "client" maintains the current integrated architecture. If you want to split it between wallet-less "bitcoind" and block-chain-less "bitcoinui" then you have to explicitly specify which protocol you are going to use between the two halves. You cannot just hide behind a row of dashes. It has to be a two-way communication protocol that handles (a) receiving coins (b) sending coins (c) chain extension (d) chain reorganization (e) all other miscellaneous tasks most importantly "getwork" for mining. So far nobody had made any workable proposal. There is some sketch by Genjix & friends: http://bitcoinconsultancy.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/

Back in June or so, several projects popped up intending to make secure hardware wallets. As far as I can tell, there has been absolutely zero progress from any of them, for exactly the reason that 2112 mentions. Pay special attention to the one I bolded.