[quote=“FuzzyBear, post:20, topic:1434”]Love your work takumi_yunokawa.
I have updated most if not all my post for block explorers to mention yours first… can you please start an “Official” thread or something for your block explorer in the “Services” section here as well please to help as many people find it as possible please happy to leave this thread here for the continual development you are putting in!!
Sorry to have gotten so excited on you like that. I’m starting to calm down now.
It is just very thrilling to me seeing someone with talent like yours starting to break out with some big stuff.
You know if Sunny is right that Bitcoin may run into some differing big problems with individual block capacity, overall blockchain capacity, transaction fee issues, miner dissatisfaction and declining security, etc., etc.,
And, he has designed Peercoin as well as it appears he has and he continues to improve it, as he appears to be doing… then, having the best blockchain explorer for Peercoin could become a big deal.
I agree with you and I think it is smart to be looking for the best possible name.
Fuzzybear has a great one. Yes? You think?
I mean for a guy who runs a forum?
Who couldn’t like a guy with a name like Fuzzybear.
[ul][li]Live blocks! (when a block is mined, it automatically appear in the list)[/li]
[li]Coin-age stats: Coin-age destroyed (per block and per transaction) and Average coin age (per block). Let me know if there is anything else that would be useful![/li]
[li]Various performance/backend improvements.[/li]
[li]Fixed: Some balances were wrong because of bug during orphaned block processing.[/li][/ul]
Next step being API and maybe wallet services, I was thinking to directly go with BIP0032 (Hierarchical Determinstic wallets). However, Peercoin doesn’t have its version bytes for key derivation. Can I just choose anything? Any suggestion?
I have used your blockchain explorer quite a few times and it has worked like a champ for me. Thank you.
I have a question about wallets which I imagine in Peercoin will be somewhat different because of PoS minting.
At this early stage of cryptocurriencies I think the distributed blockchain network has shown itself to be robust and durable but the end user’s computers have often been the weak point insecurity. Undetected malware, keyloggers and such stealing passwords. It does not matter how good your password, passphrase or long random sequence is, if the bad guys know it or learn it through end user computer insecurity - which is rampant and getting worse - system busted / funds stolen.
So, I have become a fan of Paper Wallets - where the Private Key and Public Address are generated in an offline computer. Only the Public Address is taken back online and used for receiving and holding. The Private Key remains offline and safe from misuse.
Here is the question: Can a wallet be designed that would not contain Private Keys but would be able to participate in the Proof-of-Stake minting process?
@newmoneyera, I highly doubt that you can develop a wallet which can create a block without the private key.
But even when you could it would not be beneficial to the network. The 1% PoS is there to encourage keeping clients/wallets online, when you create off-line wallets which can mint no-one would be interested to keep a client running and the network detoriates quickly.
@takumi_yonukawa
Did you already have a look at the open source Bitcoin project to develop blockchain.info style wallets?
Here is the link to the topic I posted: http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2164.0.
I’m trying to get some interest to fork this Bitcoin webwallet to a Peercoin webwallet which can be hosted anywhere (e.g. this forum, your blockchain or for the tech savvy at home or a VPS). Would like to know if you would be interested to built this and what kind of bounty you would consider starting working on it. You may PM me if you don’t like to share this widely or post in the other thread to stay on-topic and we can discuss some further requirements for this project.
Unfortunately I can’t help you with your question about BIP0032 not being a developer myself. Hope someone else can jump in on this one.
[quote=“Cybnate, post:25, topic:1434”]@newmoneyera, I highly doubt that you can develop a wallet which can create a block without the private key.
But even when you could it would not be beneficial to the network. The 1% PoS is there to encourage keeping clients/wallets online, when you create off-line wallets which can mint no-one would be interested to keep a client running and the network detoriates quickly.
@takumi_yonukawa
Did you already have a look at the open source Bitcoin project to develop blockchain.info style wallets?
Here is the link to the topic I posted: http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2164.0.
I’m trying to get some interest to fork this Bitcoin webwallet to a Peercoin webwallet which can be hosted anywhere (e.g. this forum, your blockchain or for the tech savvy at home or a VPS). Would like to know if you would be interested to built this and what kind of bounty you would consider starting working on it. You may PM me if you don’t like to share this widely or post in the other thread to stay on-topic and we can discuss some further requirements for this project.
Unfortunately I can’t help you with your question about BIP0032 not being a developer myself. Hope someone else can jump in on this one.[/quote]
I took quick look at coinpunk, quite interesting. Didn’t check into details yet (current status, feasability, etc…).
[ul][li]Much more easy to develop/adapt[/li]
[li]Client-side only![/li]
[li]Most of functionalities are the same (sign, send TX from browser)[/li]
[li]Almost nothing to setup server-side[/li]
[li]Security is client side => server-side doesn’t need to worry too much about security, backup, etc… SSL to avoid man in the middle and opensource should be enough hopefully.[/li]
[li]I was planning to extend it so that user can also generate a watch-only seed (not sure if I could keep it at only 12-words tho…) that he could use most of the time on unsafe computers (see BIP0032 & electrum for details)[/li]
[li]Compatible with a future electrum PPC port (if we keep the same seed system).[/li]
[li]Later some account system could still be added (but it might prove unecessary?)[/li]
[li]Also possibility to make tx sign offline (in combination with public seed account to send it?)[/li]
[li]Easy to use same seed for many altcoin[/li][/ul]
[ul][li]In Address view, pending (live) transactions are now included in operations list and balance (might do a separate “unconfirmed” balance later, not sure yet). That means you can F5 to refresh a specific address and you’ll see unconfirmed transactions in the list. It doesn’t update live yet but that should happen soon.[/li][/ul]
PS: Changed my name to “bkchain” to match the website name.
I’m loving the new updates! I do have a question for you, when looking at a block’s data, what calculation is used to generate the “average coin age” value? When I look across blocks, their values appear very similar (usually around ~100.84), which seems like it is too consistent.
On the other hand, if it is accurate, it would be very interesting, because it may mean that there’s an underlying mechanic of the protocol that hasn’t been fully understood.
[quote=“Ben, post:28, topic:1434”]I’m loving the new updates! I do have a question for you, when looking at a block’s data, what calculation is used to generate the “average coin age” value? When I look across blocks, their values appear very similar (usually around ~100.84), which seems like it is too consistent.
On the other hand, if it is accurate, it would be very interesting, because it may mean that there’s an underlying mechanic of the protocol that hasn’t been fully understood.[/quote]
I understood it as an average across the blockchain, so that won’t change much over time. But interested in Bkchain’s answer.
@bkchain, will look into the other webwallet you proposed, need some more time for that
[quote=“Ben, post:28, topic:1434”]I’m loving the new updates! I do have a question for you, when looking at a block’s data, what calculation is used to generate the “average coin age” value? When I look across blocks, their values appear very similar (usually around ~100.84), which seems like it is too consistent.
On the other hand, if it is accurate, it would be very interesting, because it may mean that there’s an underlying mechanic of the protocol that hasn’t been fully understood.[/quote]
Good observation, Ben. Please keep posting what you are seeing and thinking.
[quote=“bkchain, post:26, topic:1434”]I also had another option in mind, based on http://carbonwallet.com/.
Advantages:
[ul][li]Much more easy to develop/adapt[/li]
[li]Client-side only![/li]
[li]Most of functionalities are the same (sign, send TX from browser)[/li]
[li]Almost nothing to setup server-side[/li]
[li]Security is client side => server-side doesn’t need to worry too much about security, backup, etc… SSL to avoid man in the middle and opensource should be enough hopefully.[/li]
[li]I was planning to extend it so that user can also generate a watch-only seed (not sure if I could keep it at only 12-words tho…) that he could use most of the time on unsafe computers (see BIP0032 & electrum for details)[/li]
[li]Compatible with a future electrum PPC port (if we keep the same seed system).[/li]
[li]Later some account system could still be added (but it might prove unecessary?)[/li]
[li]Also possibility to make tx sign offline (in combination with public seed account to send it?)[/li]
[li]Easy to use same seed for many altcoin[/li][/ul]
Let me know what you think.[/quote]
I personally am interested in building toward the long-term future. That’s why I’m here.
Peercoin, so far as I can tell, was designed for long-term scalability and security, thus enabling deep money or backbone store of value to be invested within. If Peercoin can achieve long-term scalability and security, then the financial industry will become involved with very big money. Huge Money.
Where we are today is very near the beginning. We are positioned close to the core technology - the distributed blockchain and, at this point in time I believe convenience matters little. To big money, three things matter greatly: Security, Security and Security! Big money managers generally are not tech savy. The idea of putting their precious huge funds into new technology is scary to them and any tiny whiff of insecurity will have them shying away for sure.
Vitalik Buterin in his article “Introducing Carbon Wallet” May 6, 2013 in Bitcoin Magazine, wrote:
edit: In all fairness Vitalik also says that blockchain.info has provided a fix for this with Firefox and Chrome extensions (and more password manipulation which I am concerned is prone to insecurity).
I believe that the giant advance Satoshi created is that we no longer have to have the weak link of a “Trusted third party”.
If what Vitalik has written is true, then for big money the Carbon Wallet will be a non-starter.
[ul][li]Much more easy to develop/adapt[/li]
[li]Client-side only![/li]
[li]Most of functionalities are the same (sign, send TX from browser)[/li]
[li]Almost nothing to setup server-side[/li]
[li]Security is client side => server-side doesn’t need to worry too much about security, backup, etc… SSL to avoid man in the middle and opensource should be enough hopefully.[/li]
[li]I was planning to extend it so that user can also generate a watch-only seed (not sure if I could keep it at only 12-words tho…) that he could use most of the time on unsafe computers (see BIP0032 & electrum for details)[/li]
[li]Compatible with a future electrum PPC port (if we keep the same seed system).[/li]
[li]Later some account system could still be added (but it might prove unecessary?)[/li]
[li]Also possibility to make tx sign offline (in combination with public seed account to send it?)[/li]
[li]Easy to use same seed for many altcoin[/li][/ul]
@newmoneyera, would be great to have your vote as well (if you haven’t voted already) as I suspect you might fit into use case 1 as I described or just happy with the current wallet model.
[quote=“Cybnate, post:29, topic:1434”][quote=“Ben, post:28, topic:1434”]I’m loving the new updates! I do have a question for you, when looking at a block’s data, what calculation is used to generate the “average coin age” value? When I look across blocks, their values appear very similar (usually around ~100.84), which seems like it is too consistent.
On the other hand, if it is accurate, it would be very interesting, because it may mean that there’s an underlying mechanic of the protocol that hasn’t been fully understood.[/quote]
I understood it as an average across the blockchain, so that won’t change much over time. But interested in Bkchain’s answer.
@bkchain, will look into the other webwallet you proposed, need some more time for that[/quote]
Yes, you’re right. That’s the average for blockchain at this point. Kind of similar to what Abe does.
If you have any other metrics/stats you think could be interesting, please let me know.
@bkchain the work you have done is exceptional. I feel badly that I was not more supportive of your interest in a fork of carbon wallet. Clearly you had put some substantial thought into it.
You know I have the greatest admiration of your skills, abilities and achievements.
I just read an interesting piece on an apparently secure and easy-to-use browser application that enables payments and secure communications!
Thanks! No worries, anyway I was still focusing on polishing the blockchain explorer itself before moving on to wallet.
New features:
[ul][li]Added JSON API for block, TX and address balances (check http://bkchain.org/static/api.txt). I will add better looking doc later.[/li]
[li]Much more PoS specific info on main screen: block type (PoS or PoW?), coinage destroyed, amount staked, reward, etc… Feel free to let me know if you think I should add or replace some of the indicators.[/li]
[li]Live TX/block time is now relative to current time (i.e. 5 minutes ago, auto-updated).[/li]
[li]Live TX also displays additional infos: time and coinage destroyed.[/li]
[li]Block info now separates input, output, fees and reward in block details. It also displays block type.[/li][/ul]
Note: LTC/PPC working. BTC/DOGE still being regenerated (need maybe 1 or 2 more hours).
happy to leave this thread here for the continual development you are putting in!!