Search content
Sort by
Showing 16 of 16 results by dafunkizdiz
I've been playing with BitcoinJ for a couple of months now. Slowly, I've gotten to the point that I can start committing to the repo. But I am trying to evaluate whether it makes sense to contribute if there are not a contributors. Naturally, however, I think that Java implementation of the wallet makes much more sense than JavaScript or any other dynamic programming language.
Lol, I'll bite.
He's talking about this:
https://bitcoinj.github.io/working-with-the-wallet#marriedmulti-signature-wallets-and-pluggable-signers
He's talking about this:
https://bitcoinj.github.io/working-with-the-wallet#marriedmulti-signature-wallets-and-pluggable-signers
> Blockchain is a source of truth.
> Bitcoin's blockchain is for made for recording transactions, not random messages.
> Blockchain can be used for storing other types of messages. For instance, one common use case is to do voting.
> Storing any arbitrary data on blockchain would simply not scale
> Bitcoin's blockchain is for made for recording transactions, not random messages.
> Blockchain can be used for storing other types of messages. For instance, one common use case is to do voting.
> Storing any arbitrary data on blockchain would simply not scale
You should probably use a multisignature wallet. That way nobody can spend money without the group's approval.
Do you have example of one?
Hi guys,
If I want to create an account between my friends to save money together. what is the best way to about with it?
Ideally, I think that we should have a HD wallet. And each of us deposits money to designated public/private key. And can take out money whenever we want. Sounds good? Any other considerations?
If I want to create an account between my friends to save money together. what is the best way to about with it?
Ideally, I think that we should have a HD wallet. And each of us deposits money to designated public/private key. And can take out money whenever we want. Sounds good? Any other considerations?
Re: If bitcoin gets mass adopted, must we use our mobiles to buy?
Wallet goes in your pocket. Bitcoin wallet must be mobile.
You will never feel safe with 10 million dollar in your pocket (even if it is). Too much responsibility. Hardware wallets are here to stay. For a long f**king time.
You will never feel safe with 10 million dollar in your pocket (even if it is). Too much responsibility. Hardware wallets are here to stay. For a long f**king time.
how exactly controlling access to fund done in your wallet?
if your wallet has the total control of the fund, don't expect anyone to be interested in it
you should just implement multisig address with easy interface to coordinate and connect multi users
if your wallet has the total control of the fund, don't expect anyone to be interested in it
you should just implement multisig address with easy interface to coordinate and connect multi users
One thing is for sure. The ultimate control of the funds won't rest with "me". Multi-sig feature is in the queue. Just wanted to try something different first.
How is that different to one person (ie. the one allowed to spend) setting up a wallet... and giving out the xpub (for an HD wallet) or the bitcoin address (ie. for a single private key paper wallet) to the other users (to create watching-only wallets)? Or is your idea to streamline the process?
Yep, it does uses the xpub.
Quote
As for the spending controls... how do you enforce this? What is stopping the person with "spend" permission exporting the private key(s), importing to another wallet and spending whatever they like? 
Essentially, you encrypt it.
Quote
If your wallet doesn't provide access to the private key(s)... what backup facility do you provide to ensure that the funds can be "recovered" in the case of an issue (hardware failure etc)?
Seed which is broken down and given to each member of the Treasury.
It is open source right?
Can you give us a link to the source code?
It's closed source for now. Might change it later.Can you give us a link to the source code?
I am creating an entirely new kind of wallet. It's mostly done. But I am getting a bit discouraged by the response so far. And so I am here in front of you guys to explain the idea.
I call it Treasury.
It's a wallet where you can invite yourself and your friends to create a "treasury". One person is allowed to spend and others can only see (watching wallets). Additionally, it is also possible to regulate the spending by creating access control. For instance, one is only allowed to spend X amount of bitcoins in Y amount of days.
Is there anyone who wants to try this?
I call it Treasury.
It's a wallet where you can invite yourself and your friends to create a "treasury". One person is allowed to spend and others can only see (watching wallets). Additionally, it is also possible to regulate the spending by creating access control. For instance, one is only allowed to spend X amount of bitcoins in Y amount of days.
Is there anyone who wants to try this?
Re: Would a global disaster increase or decrease the Bitcoin value ?
Bitcoin is currency of the world.
If the disaster strikes one part of the world, Bitcoin can help diffuse the impact instead of damaging one locality. Think of Venezuela. Demand increases value. Definitely seeing this raising the value of Bitcoin
If the disaster strikes one part of the world, Bitcoin can help diffuse the impact instead of damaging one locality. Think of Venezuela. Demand increases value. Definitely seeing this raising the value of Bitcoin