Thaks. Since I'm already investing in bitcore codebase, and node for
processing, I'm also becoming interested in
https://github.com/bitpay/copay
as a base wallet. (Just discovered.)
What I really want is a sort of sandbox for easy experimenting with
bitcoin scripting -- interesting contracts, or just merely
understanding contracts -- but which also has a reasonably friendly
UI, such that if I actually wind up building something usefulit might
actually get used in the wild.
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libbitcoin mailing list
> Libbitcoin@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>
::
Re: [Libbitcoin] comparison of sx O…
