sx is not a wallet though, it is a tool for sysadmins to work with the
bitcoin network, keys and internals. I use it often in debugging.
Maybe you're better served by these instead?
https://github.com/darkwallet/python-obelisk
https://github.com/darkwallet/dat.wallet/
On 05/25/2014 08:02 PM, Thomas Hartman wrote:
> On second though...
>
> "In particular, iiuc, satoshi does not require wallet.dat file for
> signing, privkeys can all be passed on command line. (Need to verity
> this, but it seems to me from reading docs.)"
>
> It looks like this is not true. You can't really do *anything* with
> satoshi client without downloading the blockchain. Which sort of
> sucks.
>
> There is a "download headers only" branch of satoshi which is probably
> a step in the right direction in this regard, but I'm not sure how
> well maintained it is.
>
> So, the upshot is that sx still wins on weight -- you don't have to
> download the blockchain to use it.
>
> But satoshi still wins on ease of use.
>
> Maybe this is another place where insight could help.
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Thomas Hartman
> <thomas@???> wrote:
>> This is mostly just to state some observations.
>>
>> sx has:
>>
>> OFFLINE TRANSACTIONS
>> SCRIPTING
>> mktx Create an unsigned tx.
>> rawscript Create the raw hex representation
>> from a script.
>> set-input Set a transaction input.
>> showscript Show the details of a raw script.
>> showtx Show the details of a transaction.
>> sign-input Sign a transaction input.
>> unwrap Validates checksum and recovers
>> version byte and original data from hexstring.
>> validsig Validate a transaction input's signature.
>> wrap Adds version byte and checksum to hexstring.
>>
>> I spent some time comparing this with
>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Raw_Transactions
>>
>> and came to the following conclusion.
>>
>> The important functionality offered by sx and not satoshi is:
>>
>> -- rawscript
>> -- validsig
>>
>> The functionality offered by satoshi and not sx is:
>>
>> -- better signing.
>> -- consistent json rpc
>>
>> The satoshi funcionality for signing is far superior to sx, and
>> encompasses everything that sx has.
>>
>> In particular, iiuc, satoshi does not require wallet.dat file for
>> signing, privkeys can all be passed on command line. (Need to verity
>> this, but it seems to me from reading docs.) So, you can use satoshi
>> raw_transactions functionality as drop in lightweight replacement for
>> sx, and this makes a lot of sense particularly for signing.
>>
>> Possible action items suggested by above observation:
>>
>> -- Drop all functions except rawscript and validsig, and point to
>> bitcoind rpc for the remaining functionality. This is especially
>> attractive if bitcoind ca run headless (that is, without blockchain).
>> Not sure what the status is on headless, but I think it's either here
>> already or coming soon.
>>
>> If that's too drastic, a compromise might be to just add pointers to
>> equivalent bitcoind functionality in help. This is especially
>> important for signing transactions. Signing is really cumbersome in
>> sx.
>>
>> -- Suggest to bitcoind dev team to add rawscript and validsig
>> functionality. This would make it easy to build "interesting" wallets
>> on top of bitcoin, just as there is an embryonic scene building
>> wallets on top of sx.
>>
>> I have been thinking a lot about "minimal viable wallet building
>> block" schemes, in conjunction with sx. I hope to have more say about
>> this soon.
>>
>> SX is almost a minimal viable wallet, but it doesn't have key
>> management and signing is painful.
>>
>> Satoshi is too "rich" of a wallet, and forces its notion of accounts
>> (groups of addresses) on to anyone that wants to build on top.
>>
>> I am thinking there is a sweet space somewhere between sx (too lean)
>> and satoshi (too fat).
>>
>> Perhaps I will have more to say about this soon.
> _______________________________________________
> Libbitcoin mailing list
> Libbitcoin@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>
::
Re: [Libbitcoin] comparison of sx O…
