What would the purpose of a "New" Foundation be?

The Foundation's origin was/is based around a core group of developers and business partners with the purpose of enabling a more democratic representation to the open source project we know as Bitcoin.

So it would seem that the BEST way to circumvent the existing collaboration would be:

1 - Establish a team of technical resources that can execute updates and enhancements in a more timely fashion
2 - Garner the support of said technical team from a few substantial business partners that support the new direction

There is no reason why there has to only be ONE Bitcoin open source project. Start a new one and have it compete and succeed against the existing client.

It does not seem to me that the Foundation has any real authority or power over the Bitcoin code (anyone can download it and re-release it), so just create your own project and organization.

Like the previous comments, I think that the Lifeboat group generally is going a job worth doing.

Take a look at their new Vanitygen program for generating Bitcoin Vanity addresses. Its open source.

Updated list with control of sending addresses...

This list is NOT really for the BitcoinQT client.

What I have coming next is a matrix with a scoring system to be able to compare the clients that are currently out there, using this criteria.

Really what I hope to accomplish is to provide a list of features that existing and new wallets could work from.

Keep the great input coming.

As long as LevelDB supports all of the platforms and performs better, then all is good.

My reasoning behind SQLite (only for wallets, not the blockchain) is that is supports native SQL syntax, has many DB tools, is portable between platforms, supports almost every programming language and supports compression and encryption. Performance when under 1Gb in size seems to be excellent and it is widely deployed (like Adobe, Skype, Dropbox and many others).

I updated the OS list.

After using a multitude of wallets, and being disappointed by almost all of them, I thought that perhaps it would be handy to have an "RFC" or some outline in which to rate them (rating matrix and scoring to follow soon).

Anyhow, here are the things I think should be in all crypto wallets.

All constructive comments are welcomed.

LINK FOR EDITING TABLE: http://socialcompare.com/en/w/crypto-wallets-1vfyr88k#


-------------------
RFC 1001
“Bitcoin Wallet Functionality”, July 2013

Abstract
For the practical use of wallets amount the multitude of operating systems and devices, a standardized list of features and functionality is necessary. The document contains a minimum set of features and functionality that all developers should include.

Table of Contents

DATABASE should prefer SQLITE? LevelDB..

Digital Currencies Supported
•   Bitcoin
•   LiteCoin
•   PPCoin

Denominations
•   Bitcoin (Btc, mBtc, uBtc)
•   Local Currency (USD, EUR, etc)
•   International Currency (JPY, CAD, etc)

Startup Methods
•   Full Blockchain (Must disclose possible bytes of data and length of time)
•   Peer chain only (multibit)
•   3rd party blockchain servers

Safety and Security
•   Encryption of Wallet (minimum requirement)
•   Backup option - online service, recoverable
•   Backup option - online service (file only, no recovery)
•   Backup option - individual key
•   Backup option - all keys, whole wallet
•   Export to cold storage
•   Change Password
•   Rescan Database

Wallet Portability
•   Export private keys
•   Import private keys
•   Print BitBills (or similar)

Input Methods
•   Address from Clipboard
•   QR Scan Address
•   QR Scan address and amount
•   Generate New Address
•   Manual Input
•   Private Key
•   2 of 3 transaction

Output Options
o   Copy to Clipboard
o   Display QR Code
o   Display Key
o   2 of 3 transaction
o   Display QR code with amount requested
o   Full control of sending (Choose Sending addresses)

Address Book
o   Add to address book from transactions page
o   Add manually (using an input method)

Display Options
o   Current Exchange Rates
o   Number of Confirmations
o   Blockchain link

Operating Systems
o   Windows PC
o   Mac
o   GNU/Linux
o   Mobile – Android
o   Mobile – iPhone store
o   Mobile – iPhone jailbreak
o   Mobile – Microsoft Phone
o   Mobile - Blackberry

Utilities
o   Rescan wallet
o   Recalc Blockchain??

•   Help
Appendix

References

Acknowledgements

Author

Here are two scenarios where I think a Central Bank will consider utilizing some form of a crypto currency and why:

1 - A complete overhaul (like Greece or an emerging nation)
2 - As a supplemental sovereign payments system (The Federal Reserve already intervened on the interchange fee for debit cards)

In both examples, I am not naive enough to think that any central bank wants an economic majority model for change, so they will certainly be "official" repository for adjustments. However, in both scenarios, there are very compelling reasons to consider using crypo currencies

- The government would "own" the sovereign payments mechanism (like they do with cash), except now this medium facilitates infinitely more robust international payments. The Federal Reserve and many other world central banks already have laws mandating how much card processors can charge, so I think they would relish being in charge of a competing payments mechanism that they own. Keep in mind that crypto currencies also replace the system of paper checks, so this is yet another huge cost savings

- The cost to issue currency could almost be completely eliminated. ATM's could literally print bills on demand for any amount. Citizens could print their own bills/checks right at their house through some official web site.

- Accountability - The Government would/could require registration of account numbers, making the tracking of financial records completely transparent (at least on the surface and for the citizens...dont expect the government to disclose their ID's). This makes tax collection and auditing much easier

- Money supply manipulation - No change here than current. They could decide when and how much to ramp up the money supply or they could do a proof-of-burn to draw down the supply

- Peer to Peer processing would still be used. The government would certainly not want to invest in a huge server farm for transaction processing, so let miners do their job and simply dial in a reward that is attractive enough for them to do it. It just like printing money to them anyway and it is much more robust than managing a check clearing system and a paper currency system

- Counterfeiting is virtually eliminated, another cost savings

The list would go on but I think you get the idea.

The technology is not mature enough today to facilitate such a transition (just look at the sad state of wallets...) but in 5 or 10 (or 20 to 50..) years both governments and citizens should be much more adept with this technology to potentially consider the extraordinary benefits.

The issue is not with your bank. I have settled my Mt Gox account into several banks and even a few credit unions.

The trouble in the past was when there became a LARGE amount of transactions, it began to look like money laundering to the analytic software that runs and therefore the banks must address high risk situations, usually by closing the account.

So if you using Mt Gox to buy or sell bitcoins in reasonable amounts, any bank or credit union will do.

The same will apply if you on localbitcoins.com and you start depositing a bunch of cash/checks and then buying a bunch of bitcoins on Mt Gox, it will start to look like money laundering again. There has to be two way transactions or some legitimate reason why a bunch of cash and/or checks are coming in and being transferred out.

This is no different than if you were doing the same with euro's.

Banks and Credit Unions want in on the action, but the regulations are VERY cut and dried about money laundering.

Keep in mind that Opencoin and Zerocoin technology STILL have an "emergency back door".

I am sure that no government will pressure them to let them in.....

Jump with caution.

Wow - There is alot of mis-information and misplaced anger over something as benign as the Foundation.

First and most obvious, TBF does NOT control  Bitcoin, the code or the development. If you think you can do better, start your own and let the economic majority do the rest. As many have mentioned here, all software development benefits from the division of labor. After all, who was going to pay for the lawyer to defend the project when the State of California came knocking?? Funny how all of the blow hards vanish when real money and responsibility arrive.

Second, as I already pointed out - It is good for ALL digital currencies to have someone clearing legal paths and investing time and energy for the greater good of the community. There is no doubt that some people that are in the TBF have special interests and profit motives but so does everyone here or else you would just use paypal or visa and call it a day. Let them do what they can to make all of our lives easier.

Third, I cant see how the TBF is "centralizing" anything but liability. Many have pointed out that Bitcoin has suffered (and continues to) from a lack of public relations and while I agree this is true, somehow it has managed $1.3B in market capitalization, so imagine what it could do? Yes, TBF will try and be a point of contact for things Bitcoin, but if Ripple or Litecoin reach the size and scope of Bitcoin, they too will need willing participants to row the boat.

I believe that there are MANY brilliant people working on this project all over the world. To think that one small group is smarter or more powerful that millions of others is absurd. Let them do their part while we do ours.

Well it looks like a EURO zone bank is jumping into the fray...

http://forexmagnates.com/german-internet-bank-partners-with-bitcoin-deutschland-gmbh-to-offer-virtual-currency-accounts/

Hopefully they will be successful!

rLK8HptstUuPf1URJoUAd1f1MbykzUdrfw

Everyone,

Since I could not find a working example of an JSON Autoit script, I created one and hopefully this will help others.

Keep in mind that you MUST edit the bitcoin.conf file set these lines:

 # server=1 tells Bitcoin-QT to accept JSON-RPC commands.
 server=1

 # You must set rpcuser and rpcpassword to secure the JSON-RPC api
 rpcuser=test
 rpcpassword=password

Additionally, if you use the bitcoind.exe program, you must start it with these options:
bitcoind.exe -daemon -conf=c:\temp\bitcoin.conf   (or whereever your .conf file is)


Enjoy:

$URL = "http://127.0.0.1:8332/"
Local $Data1='{"method":"getinfo","params":[],"id":"getinfo"}:'
Dim $obj = ObjCreate ("WinHttp.WinHttpRequest.5.1")
$obj.Open("POST", $URL, false)
$obj.SetCredentials("test","password",0)
$obj.SetRequestHeader("Content-Type", "application/json-rpc")
$obj.Send($Data1)
$oStatusCode = $obj.Status
MsgBox(0,"Response",$oStatusCode & "---" & $obj.ResponseText)

Check out this:

http://www.coindesk.com/hmrc-uk-bitcoin-exchanges-dont-have-to-register-under-money-laundering-regulations/?fb_action_ids=145679408960512&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

It looks like the UK is moving to accept bitcoins more broadly..

This is an excellent response!

All bitcoin enthusiasts should read this. It does the best job that I have seen to qualify what bitcoin is and is not, from a money transmitter perspective but also simply from a "money" perspective.

Great work.

I will agree that every change to the hardware does open the door for the potential of a brute force attack.

However I think the "Could" has to be tempered by the "Would". Simply, ASIC's are shipping right now to legitimate miners and the hash rates are reflecting that. If you have followed Butterfly labs, I can tell you that the chance of ordering and receiving 300 units of that magnitude would require far more resources than just the 7.5M of cash (physically the ASIC's just are not available), so by the time someone could get that much hash power, they would need twice as much again.

But for the sake of argument, someone COULD get their hands on enough equipment and COULD overpower the network. Then they would not only have to outpace the blockchain building, but they would have to introduce something malicious to double spend or otherwise compromise the network. OK, lets say a government has all of this hardware, software and development power and has the will do to it, the end user community would only be "fooled" for a VERY short period of time (as soon as someone noticed a doublespend or other malice). At that point bitcoins would be worth nothing because everyone would know that they were hacked, so the entire effort probably could not have even repaid the cost of the hardware alone. To rectify the whole situation (and this has been done already), the blockchain could be forked by the "legitimate" development team, back to the point in time before the corruption began and let legitimate nodes and pools begin again with patched software and all of the previous bitcoins would be in tact.

It is a very real thing to consider, but I would be more afraid of Google Play being hacked and pushing out a corrupt wallet or other software that could easily constitute an economic majority in a matter of hours, and it would cost zero.

I dont think that the cost/risk/reward is there, since there are many other digital currencies and users could potentially just migrate (Mt Gox would be a perfect example)

Always good to keep doing the math though.

Well it looks like Bitcoin is back on the financial headlines

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100858455

 and

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100815062

 The good news is that high profile users bring credibility to end users who might not otherwise have looked.

Agreed. The low priority txs is still acceptable, but if bitcoins value was say $1000 USD then a fixed threshold would represent an ever escalating minimum fee.

Summary: The minimum fee needs to be adjustable and probably the best way to accomplish this is via an open market solution - let the miners who are processing the transactions set the fee.

The point of consolidating dust is that it is the same premise as the penny jar. If you use multiple wallets, various transaction identifiers, etc, etc - You always end up with small amounts of bitcoins left over. If you consolidate them all into one wallet (AKA - the penny wallet), then one day you get a free cup of coffee.

It doesn't address any big issue, but there was a previous post about how to deal with small bitcoins left over in various wallets so I was sharing what I have done with mine.


That doesn't do anything.
[/quote]

The dust I am referring to is generated from mining (< .0001) or from transactions where division is required and the results are many digits out (maybe pay per click web adds). While Satoshidice is certainly the biggest dust generator at the time, there is no way to avoid transactions getting smaller with time due to deflation so a fixed cost will absolutely fail in the long run. This is already become an issue because bitcoin went from $10 USD per coin to over $200 per coin, so suddenly the minimum fee went from .10 USD to $2.00 USD - This is deflation and it is already negatively affecting what we would consider small transactions (a cup of coffee now has a $2 transaction fee..)

So while I don't think that verion .82 is the answer, its an short term solution to a bigger problem that has to be fixed, so I support the effort if for no other reason to keep bitcoin viable while it is growing in adoption. If you kill the small transaction market, you lose a big market of potential users.

Boy there is a lot of interesting points of view in this thread.

An economic majority is one of the unique Great/Terrible features that bitcoin relies upon.

I saw many posts indicating that bitcoin was not designed/intended for micro-payments, which I do not believe is completely accurate. Since bitcoin has a strong deflationary bias, the average transaction size will DECREASE with time, making payments today that we may consider micro-payments, be standard payments in the future.

Addressing the arbitrary .01 cost of a transaction (or .0005) is an absolute must. Clearly the best solution is to let the miners set the fee that they will accept and process transactions so that competition and deflation can automatically adjust the cost.

As for dealing with wallet dust, probably the easiest way to deal with this is simply to export the keys from any/all wallets and then import them back into one wallet to consolidate your dust. It may still result in a transaction fee but at least you can keep all your pennies in one jar.