Here is my other thread,
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4140.0

I've got most of the code to implement this addition completed, but I need to update it to use sipa's latest modifications.  I'm waiting on his code to be approved into the main bitcoin codebase.

I built and ran sipa's code and was just testing it out with the testbox [mike] created,

here is the result of listtransactions after making a few sends thru the gui
{
    "" : 3725.00000000,
    "Test" : 10.00000000,
    "Test2" : 5.00000000,
    "Your Address" : 10.00000000
}

Next I transferred 3726.0 to "Your Address"
{
    "" : -1.00000000,
    "Test" : 10.00000000,
    "Test2" : 5.00000000,
    "Your Address" : 3736.00000000
}

Should a balance be able to be negative?

This sounds like a good patch to implement, is there a next step to getting it commited into the root of bitcoin?  Is this pending code review?

This is a great idea, I think we should do this for a lot of the bitcoin code, it took a while to wrap my head around a lot of the algorithms in the bitcoin source.

So, I'm working on adding code to bitcoin that allows users to send from specific addresses.  I have it flushed out but running into some issues.  It has takin me a while to properly form the question for the problem I'm running into which relates to understanding how bitcoin handles the below situation:

In the un-modified bitcoin, I'm not sure how the below is handled

*** transaction 1 ***
Say you have 50 BTC in your account from 1 generation
you use "sendfrom" to send 1 BTC to another account you own
this creates a transaction with 1 input and two outputs
50 btc as the input, call this address A
49 btc as change (from a somewhat random address or group of addresses you own to a hidden address) call this address U
1 btc to the address you specified, call this address B

When transaction 1 is commited, I believe the input transaction is marked as spent, in this case, it's fine because 50btc was the only output of a previous transaction that is connected to the input of my "Transaction 1"

*** transaction 2 ***
So now I want to spend say 0.5 BTC.
The software only has two addresses it can possibly select 0.5BTC from, "U" and "B".
So it selects one of these outputs from Transaction 1 as the input for Transaction 2
creates a change output for transaction 2 called U2
sends 0.5BTC to my desired address C

This is where I think I'm missing something, because it seems to me that when transaction 2 is commited, it would mark transaction 1 as spent, but transaction 1 still has an unused output that is ours and is not spent.  I've looked thru the code I don't know how many times and I can't figure out how this case is handled.  Can someone point out my flaw?

is there a way to run the block explorer on the testbox setup you created?

Great Job!  Not your problem, but it's still kind of annoying at difficulty 1 it takes 1 hour to generate a block on a 1000khash/sec machine....

oh well, this should be faster than the current testnet.  Thanks

great idea, I'll try it out tonight!

There is one issue that comes to my mind when considering messages stored in the block chain. The message is stored there forever, and readable to everyone whether the recipient wants it there or not.  I could write anything I want in my message and send it out.  Revealing the other users identity or email address, a negative feedback, whatever.  I guess it could be encrypted with the keys. 

I went all night and my test net faucet transaction never came thru and it looks like no blocks have been generated!  Is this just because no one is generating on the testnet?  If no one is generating, should we send real BTC to miners that generate on the test network to create an incentive for them to do so?  I can only pull off 1khash/sec thru the bitcoin client, so it currently takes me 1 1/2+ days to generate a block.  Seems like it would be beneficial to have an active testnet for all the features everyone is working on.

Ha, ok, I just realized that, so what are the advantages to SSL for this site?  I don't login to access secure info, so I'm not that worried, what are others concerns?

I agree it is basically the same, but the later doesn't scare people with a warning.  I think enough people would pitch in for the SSL cost to make the issue go away, if money is the only problem.  I'm not aware of the past history of this request though.

Awesome idea, I've been thinking of different ways to do this, because it seems the thing holding bitcoin back the most is no ability to build up a web of trust without having +20 to nerd skills.  I think all of this could be made very easy for anyone to do thru the proper GUI, but it seems the easiest place to start would be to build a few basic commands into bitcoind so we don't have to have random tools looking thru peoples' wallets.  Does that sound good?

I would be interested in integrating these message signing commands into bitcoind, if you don't have time.

All,

I appreciate the person who put bitcoin into macports, but I ran into an error while installing.  Maybe someone can help.

I'm using llvm-g++ installed by mac ports.  I think this is the issue, is there a certain version I should be using?  I ran into this same problem compiling the bitcoin client manually, without using mac ports.

So lets say, I run a fictional ebay account selling goods to people and I want to accept BTC.  Everytime I make a sale and someone wants to pay me in BTC, I go into my Bitcoin client go to address book and click on receiving, and then select my ebay receiving BTC address.  I copy it to clipboard and email it off to the customer to pay me, and wait on their payment to arrive before I ship.

This is all fine and good until I have more than 1 customers who haven't paid.  I somehow need to verify which customers have paid and which ones have not.  But I cannot tell that by looking at the addresses of coins I receive via Bitcoin.  Okay, maybe the items cost different amounts and I can distinguish the orders by looking at the price, but say all the items cost $5.99 so price alone can't determine the customer.

Is there a solution to this problem?  Do I have to create a new address for every new order?

What about adding the public/private mode like chrome/firefox?  It could default to privacy mode which would be the current setup, but could be toggled to public mode where you can have accounts where an address in that account can be used for both sending and receiving.  I think this would really simplify a lot of bitcoin, open it up to a much broader audience, and make room for a lot more services to build on top.

I like the roadmap, and think the wallet backup/restore feature needs to be integrated quickly.  Right now, everyone has to be fairly computer savvy to backup and restore a wallet, seems like this is a feature everyone wants and should just take a couple clicks.  Password protecting everything would be a great idea too.

Has anyone else noticed the load time on at least Mac OSX is sometimes incredibly long?  30-60 seconds + before any sort of a GUI pops up?  Can whatever is being done be moved to happen after the GUI has loaded?  Maybe a progress bar?  I've almost force quit the application before, thinking it was locked up.

Hi All,

I was sending BTC to different friends, just playing around with the GUI and realized it doesn't seem I have control over which "from" address is used in a Send transaction.  Is this true?

Does anyone know how bitcoin determines which "from" address to assign to a send transaction?

JG

agreed, he is dealing with a lot right now, he is doing a job i wouldn't touch with a 10ft pole

Where is the link to the video?