Brainstorming: GUI for the rebased client
Forum rules
Warning !
Avoid using binary softwares from untrusted users.
Prefer compiling it yourself and verify sources.
Warning !
Avoid using binary softwares from untrusted users.
Prefer compiling it yourself and verify sources.
Re: Brainstorming: GUI for the rebased client
We all agree that we should use a way to get a GUI for namecore that takes as little effort as possible (at a reasonable outcome).
I image it to be relatively difficult to add name_ops to Armory. Maybe it would be easier to create a light weight RPC GUI front end. Cassini suggested using a HTTP GUI (imho a normal GUI is slightly more confidence inspiring).
I will take a closer look at these:
http://chromawallet.com/
http://tcatm.github.io/bitcoin-js-remote/
I image it to be relatively difficult to add name_ops to Armory. Maybe it would be easier to create a light weight RPC GUI front end. Cassini suggested using a HTTP GUI (imho a normal GUI is slightly more confidence inspiring).
I will take a closer look at these:
http://chromawallet.com/
http://tcatm.github.io/bitcoin-js-remote/
-
- Posts: 2001
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
- os: linux
Re: Brainstorming: GUI for the rebased client
I can't speak myself to the difficulty of adding name ops to Armory, but Ryan didn't seem to think it would be very hard (I believe based on comments on GitHub and/or IRC).phelix wrote:We all agree that we should use a way to get a GUI for namecore that takes as little effort as possible (at a reasonable outcome).
I image it to be relatively difficult to add name_ops to Armory. Maybe it would be easier to create a light weight RPC GUI front end. Cassini suggested using a HTTP GUI (imho a normal GUI is slightly more confidence inspiring).
I will take a closer look at these:
http://chromawallet.com/
http://tcatm.github.io/bitcoin-js-remote/
Re: Brainstorming: GUI for the rebased client
This looks very promising. Latest commit occurred 14 months ago, though. However, the dev is still quite active at github. Currently busy with meshnet.phelix wrote:http://tcatm.github.io/bitcoin-js-remote/
It shouldn't be too difficult for him or any other developer proficient in JavaScript to fork bitcoin-js-remote and add name-related features.
Re: Brainstorming: GUI for the rebased client
Recently domob and I discussed this issue and (I think domob) came up with a new idea:
* Use the rebranded Bitcoin-Qt GUI for everything currency related
* Create a separate GUI only for name_ops
This has some advantages:
* we get all features from Bitcoin, e.g. coincontrol
* differences between Bitcoin and Namecore are kept at a minimum
* we only need to implement a minimal new GUI frontend for name_ops and can focus all efforts on this
* we can easily add new features to the name-GUI
IMHO separating the name_ops is quite a clear cut. The name-GUI could be integrated into NMControl. The only thing missing is coin control for name_ops but I don't see any other option with this feature.
* Use the rebranded Bitcoin-Qt GUI for everything currency related
* Create a separate GUI only for name_ops
This has some advantages:
* we get all features from Bitcoin, e.g. coincontrol
* differences between Bitcoin and Namecore are kept at a minimum
* we only need to implement a minimal new GUI frontend for name_ops and can focus all efforts on this
* we can easily add new features to the name-GUI
IMHO separating the name_ops is quite a clear cut. The name-GUI could be integrated into NMControl. The only thing missing is coin control for name_ops but I don't see any other option with this feature.
-
- Posts: 2001
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
- os: linux
Re: Brainstorming: GUI for the rebased client
Personally I don't think this makes sense from a usability perspective. End users probably want to receive NMC from the same UI that creates names by spending those NMC. I still think Armory makes more sense.phelix wrote:Recently domob and I discussed this issue and (I think domob) came up with a new idea:
* Use the rebranded Bitcoin-Qt GUI for everything currency related
* Create a separate GUI only for name_ops
This has some advantages:
* we get all features from Bitcoin, e.g. coincontrol
* differences between Bitcoin and Namecore are kept at a minimum
* we only need to implement a minimal new GUI frontend for name_ops and can focus all efforts on this
* we can easily add new features to the name-GUI
IMHO separating the name_ops is quite a clear cut. The name-GUI could be integrated into NMControl. The only thing missing is coin control for name_ops but I don't see any other option with this feature.
Re: Brainstorming: GUI for the rebased client
This should be way easier. Also we could maybe design it in a modular way so that the nameGUI and Armory can share as much code as possible.biolizard89 wrote:Personally I don't think this makes sense from a usability perspective. End users probably want to receive NMC from the same UI that creates names by spending those NMC. I still think Armory makes more sense.phelix wrote:Recently domob and I discussed this issue and (I think domob) came up with a new idea:
* Use the rebranded Bitcoin-Qt GUI for everything currency related
* Create a separate GUI only for name_ops
This has some advantages:
* we get all features from Bitcoin, e.g. coincontrol
* differences between Bitcoin and Namecore are kept at a minimum
* we only need to implement a minimal new GUI frontend for name_ops and can focus all efforts on this
* we can easily add new features to the name-GUI
IMHO separating the name_ops is quite a clear cut. The name-GUI could be integrated into NMControl. The only thing missing is coin control for name_ops but I don't see any other option with this feature.
Re: Brainstorming: GUI for the rebased client
from the roadmap thread:
hmm...somename wrote:Related to Core GUI > Alternatives, you can take a look at github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-gui, it's a Python-based wrapper that can support several back ends (currently Bitcoin Core 0.10) and it is easily extensible via plugins. It can use a local or remote server.
It's built to be simple, which may be a good or bad thing depending on one's goals.
Re: Brainstorming: GUI for the rebased client
IMHO namecontrol for name operations at least, it is namecontrol after all.
For Tx and Signing too if it's technically possible and secure. If not armory/multibit.
Other development avenue would be to create a lightweight client.
For Tx and Signing too if it's technically possible and secure. If not armory/multibit.
Other development avenue would be to create a lightweight client.
-
- Posts: 2001
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
- os: linux
Re: Brainstorming: GUI for the rebased client
In terms of attack surface, I would rather than the application holding private keys be separate from the application looking up names. Armory fits that bill perfectly. Having NMControl (which may be renamed NameControl) hold keys as well as look up names would not be a good idea by this standard.johnc wrote:IMHO namecontrol for name operations at least, it is namecontrol after all.
For Tx and Signing too if it's technically possible and secure. If not armory/multibit.
Other development avenue would be to create a lightweight client.
Re: Brainstorming: GUI for the rebased client
No need for the name gui to hold keys.biolizard89 wrote:In terms of attack surface, I would rather than the application holding private keys be separate from the application looking up names. Armory fits that bill perfectly. Having NMControl (which may be renamed NameControl) hold keys as well as look up names would not be a good idea by this standard.johnc wrote:IMHO namecontrol for name operations at least, it is namecontrol after all.
For Tx and Signing too if it's technically possible and secure. If not armory/multibit.
Other development avenue would be to create a lightweight client.