About the messages system. Whether it must develop ?
-
Hi everyone:
Recently, a few new Coin have messages system.for example CMC,FLO. I think this is a potential function.Do you think it is a must do ?
I read source code of CMC from https://github.com/cosmoscoin/cosmoscoin . I found some place it changes.
//1) src/qt/sendcoinsdialog.cpp ----
#if QT_VERSION >= 0x040700
/* Do not move this to the XML file, Qt before 4.7 will choke on it */
ui->editTxComment->setPlaceholderText(tr(“Enter a transaction comment (MAX 256 Characters) (Note: This information is public)”));
#endif
WalletModel::SendCoinsReturn sendstatus = model->sendCoins(txcomment, recipients);//2) src/qt/walletmodel.h ------
SendCoinsReturn sendCoins(const QString &txcomment, const QList &recipients);
//3) src/qt/walletmodel.cpp ------
if (!strTxComment.empty())
strTxComment = “text:” + strTxComment;
bool fCreated = wallet->CreateTransaction(vecSend, wtx, keyChange, nFeeRequired, strTxComment);//4) src/wallet.cpp --------
bool CWallet::CreateTransaction(const vector -
The idea behind the messaging in these systems seems sound, put text content into a decentralised system that cannot be taken down which gives freedom of speech. People sending coins can insert arbitrary strings of their choosing into the blockchain. Be warned that people will spam us with stuff like links of the worst kind imaginable and then we will have that in our block chain forever. People managed to put a highly offensive links into a Bitcoin TX, but that had to be read with a special program to decode the links, the messaging system in FLO and CMC allows simple plaintext.
That is concern that I have. Also note that this would require a hard fork so that current clients would not be compatible with clients with messaging.
-
I think unless good security measures against spam are implemented the disadvantages of an implemented messaging systems outnumber the advantages.
On the other hand the ‘request payment’ feature in bitcoin where you can enter a reason for the payment requested is a nice thing.
May be the messaging could be bound or limited to coin transactions of a given amount as a countermeasure against spam.
Overall my opinion about this is: If in doubt, leave it out ;)
-
To make a long story short, block chain messaging is a bad idea.
-
[quote name=“ghostlander” post=“31290” timestamp=“1381845610”]
To make a long story short, block chain messaging is a bad idea.
[/quote]Could we create a messaging system that works alongside the blockchain?
-
You talk about chat coin? ;)
-
[quote name=“chrisj” post=“31294” timestamp=“1381847754”]
[quote author=ghostlander link=topic=4032.msg31290#msg31290 date=1381845610]
To make a long story short, block chain messaging is a bad idea.
[/quote]Could we create a messaging system that works alongside the blockchain?
[/quote]Someone can try to integrate Jabber into the Qt client :)
-
[quote name=“ghostlander” post=“31316” timestamp=“1381861480”]
[quote author=chrisj link=topic=4032.msg31294#msg31294 date=1381847754]
[quote author=ghostlander link=topic=4032.msg31290#msg31290 date=1381845610]
To make a long story short, block chain messaging is a bad idea.
[/quote]Could we create a messaging system that works alongside the blockchain?
[/quote]Someone can try to integrate Jabber into the Qt client :)
[/quote]I think it would be a really nice user experience for people to send messages, even if private, with their payments like “here are your FTC I promised, thanks for the beers”. But for it to really work it would have to work on all wallets not just the QT client.
-
Perhaps messages can be encrypted with the public key so only the owner of the private key can read them.
There has to be a limit on the size of the message and the message should be included when working out the fee.
-
Constructive , Continue to discuss .
-
+1
spam is not problem.This is an application opportunities .People send a message charges 0.1FTC .That 0.1FTC Currency recovered by the network and available to miners .Would not that be nice ? -
Adding a messaging system would only be sensible without the hard fork, and a separate database. I think it would need to have an option to opt in or out.
Perhaps, there is a co-operative solution, could we link to a Bitmessage, using the Feathercoin key to create a Bitmessage might do the same job.
On the positive side the idea of a separate payment stream for miners will also bolster support and network and increase security.
I would suggest a much smaller payment level, I believe we should budget for FTC = £5, when thinking ahead to a widely used system. At a minimal cost of 0.5p a message that would be 0.001 (FTC). It would prevent unnecessary spam, but be very cheep for initial users, to get the system up and tested.
I’d be for this, adding a message service option, if the code was easy to implement, and you could choose to support the extra database (for lighter users).
This may be something we should provisionally add as a serious option. I see the message could be useful to vendors as a cryptographic receipt system.
The disadvantage, there would be a message blockchain, if the miner wins they would have to extra work creating the message block chain. Also the extra network traffic, cost.
worth further discussion
-
Bitcoin is already facing serious blockchain size issues. While I agree that this is a great use for blockchain technology, I would warn against anything that has the potential for blockchain bloat, IF the point is to maximize utility.
I’ve not heard anyone bring up the argument that this would increase the valuation of Feathercoins. I think it would… if you had to spend Feathercoins to broadcast a message to the blockchain, then Feathercoin may experience greater demand. On the other hand, this scenario requires massive adoption to be considered valuable, so unless you have ‘email gateways’ that forward messages in and out of the network and on to other networks, I have a hard time seeing this becoming widely used.
Which brings up another argument against: Why is this better than email? Why would someone use this instead of email? Or tormail? Or Skype? Or connecting directly? Where is the utility in broadcast messages that live forever? What’s the use case?
-
[quote name=“Kevlar” post=“35863” timestamp=“1385180844”]
Which brings up another argument against: Why is this better than email? Why would someone use this instead of email? Or tormail? Or Skype? Or connecting directly? Where is the utility in broadcast messages that live forever? What’s the use case?
[/quote]Convenience. The use case I was thinking of was a message/reference with a payment. But does it even have to go in to the blockchain? Can the message not run on some parallel protocol?
-
[quote name=“chrisj” post=“35872” timestamp=“1385192505”]
[quote author=Kevlar link=topic=4032.msg35863#msg35863 date=1385180844]
Which brings up another argument against: Why is this better than email? Why would someone use this instead of email? Or tormail? Or Skype? Or connecting directly? Where is the utility in broadcast messages that live forever? What’s the use case?
[/quote]Convenience. The use case I was thinking of was a message/reference with a payment. But does it even have to go in to the blockchain? Can the message not run on some parallel protocol?
[/quote]Indeed. The payment protocol has memo support. Don’t mean to sound like a broken record or anything, but the payment protocol totally addresses this issue.
