📅 Original date posted:2015-02-01
📝 Original message:Both wallet and server side implementations will be based on existing
code in me-friendly language (C++>Python>anything else). I don't have
a time for it right now but Crypto hackathon in Parallel Polis
(http://cryptohack.org/) seems like good opportunity for it. I will
let you know then.
2015-02-01 14:43 GMT+01:00 Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net>:
> If you decide to implement this in an existing or new bitcoinj based wallet,
> then I'm happy to give you pointers on how to do it. Making one-off, cross
> platform app specific wallets is pretty easy these days. For 2-of-3 dispute
> mediation transactions they'd start out being kind of specialist so asking
> people to move money from their general spending wallet into dispute
> mediation app isn't unthinkable. Eventually general purpose wallets would
> integrate protocol, UI ideas and maybe code.
>
> At least, that's how I'd do it.
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Martin Habovštiak
> <martin.habovstiak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I didn't consider that, thank you for feedback! I will try to find
>> some time for implementing it. I'll write again then.
>>
>> 2015-01-31 23:50 GMT+02:00 Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>:
>> > I agree- standards should be descriptive ("here is how this thing I did
>> > works") and NOT proscriptive ("here's what I think will work, lets all
>> > try
>> > to do it this way.").
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I could look at implementing it someday, but now I'd like to receive
>> >>> feedback from community.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> IMO it's better to pair a protocol spec with an implementation.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> > Gavin Andresen
>
>
Martin Habovštiak [ARCHIVE] /
npub186…y2s83
2023-06-07 15:29:23
in reply to nevent1q…jm6q
Author Public Key
npub186h7xm74e8dqvz64kzhx8aq3j47lwf3emlxl7w8j0d0thrth65vs9y2s83Published at
2023-06-07 15:29:23Event JSON
{
"id": "ac72c6182ceb32fb16869297845c788c87bdc162565cc59720687fab393a5ded",
"pubkey": "3eafe36fd5c9da060b55b0ae63f411957df72639dfcdff38f27b5ebb8d77d519",
"created_at": 1686151763,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1a1adfd420d8cbfa114b48f74aa8344e8137660e1f9f2310145a42eba5f570f5",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2f5e26f58dce564dc70f9b3cf4b9bd7d969809322e95ed41e19f3379ca7c542c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-02-01\n📝 Original message:Both wallet and server side implementations will be based on existing\ncode in me-friendly language (C++\u003ePython\u003eanything else). I don't have\na time for it right now but Crypto hackathon in Parallel Polis\n(http://cryptohack.org/) seems like good opportunity for it. I will\nlet you know then.\n\n2015-02-01 14:43 GMT+01:00 Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e:\n\u003e If you decide to implement this in an existing or new bitcoinj based wallet,\n\u003e then I'm happy to give you pointers on how to do it. Making one-off, cross\n\u003e platform app specific wallets is pretty easy these days. For 2-of-3 dispute\n\u003e mediation transactions they'd start out being kind of specialist so asking\n\u003e people to move money from their general spending wallet into dispute\n\u003e mediation app isn't unthinkable. Eventually general purpose wallets would\n\u003e integrate protocol, UI ideas and maybe code.\n\u003e\n\u003e At least, that's how I'd do it.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Martin Habovštiak\n\u003e \u003cmartin.habovstiak at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I didn't consider that, thank you for feedback! I will try to find\n\u003e\u003e some time for implementing it. I'll write again then.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 2015-01-31 23:50 GMT+02:00 Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e I agree- standards should be descriptive (\"here is how this thing I did\n\u003e\u003e \u003e works\") and NOT proscriptive (\"here's what I think will work, lets all\n\u003e\u003e \u003e try\n\u003e\u003e \u003e to do it this way.\").\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e I could look at implementing it someday, but now I'd like to receive\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e feedback from community.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e IMO it's better to pair a protocol spec with an implementation.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e --\n\u003e\u003e \u003e --\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Gavin Andresen\n\u003e\n\u003e",
"sig": "a3c812b447ebd87e3d588f2f53c0dbb438a09c9df8ac3adc286831b8dca8b98b369f36073155d5e0cd1fc3a5399ee1eb8721e72ec4f1de0b6bd3a51eec9345f4"
}