. - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Matt Corallo

hero member

Activity: 755

Merit: 515

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on April 20, 2011, 03:01:14 PM

We've already got ParseMoney in util.cpp, this patch adds parseNumber/uriParseAmount. Having more than one way to convert strings into bitcoin amounts is not a good idea, in my humble opinion.

Problem is that the URI Spec uses a different method for encoding values (for future compatibility) specifically using exponents to allow uBTC to be specified as 1X2 or other similar situations. IMHO this is needless and is overcomplicated for no reason, but it is already the way it is done and I don't see anyone complaining too much here so unless you highly disagree, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on April 20, 2011, 03:01:14 PM

Also, instead of having a separate executable it would be more 'wxbitcoin-like' to have one executable that acts as either client or server depending on what command-line arguments are given. The problem with two executables is you'll have clueless users double-clicking on bitcoinuri.exe and then wondering why it doesn't do anything.

Working on changing that

Gavin Andresen

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 2301

Chief Scientist

We've already got ParseMoney in util.cpp, this patch adds parseNumber/uriParseAmount. Having more than one way to convert strings into bitcoin amounts is not a good idea, in my humble opinion.

Also, instead of having a separate executable it would be more 'wxbitcoin-like' to have one executable that acts as either client or server depending on what command-line arguments are given. The problem with two executables is you'll have clueless users double-clicking on bitcoinuri.exe and then wondering why it doesn't do anything.

I do like the use of boost message queues to communicate.

Matt Corallo

hero member

Activity: 755

Merit: 515

Working on some slight modifications to make it pull-able and will send in a pull request when I'm done. (mostly removing tonal/hex stuff which jgarzik specifically objected to and adding support for Windows and OSX)

sirius

sr. member

Activity: 429

Merit: 1002

Thanks for quick completion, Luke!

You can test the URIs on Firefox (3.5 and above):

Type about:config into the Location Bar (address bar) and press Enter.
Right-click -> New -> Boolean -> Name: network.protocol-handler.expose.bitcoin -> Value -> false
Create an html page with a bitcoin-link: payment link
Click the link and you will be asked which application to open it with. Open with the bitcoinuri binary.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Final and MIT licensed version:
http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/d32bebafd41fac885055274ebf6142b960d1345e

I put a lot of work into doing this perfectly, at way below cost from what I would usually charge for programming, so I would like to request it only be merged as-is, with any pre-merge changes made by me. Specifically, I have concerns about jgarzik and tcatm trying to break the entire URI specification 3 months after it's been implemented in every* client except their own. Obviously, my request still leaves them room to do so post-merge, but at least this way people who have problems can be pointed to a specific breaking revision to revert to fix it.

And to clear up any FUD in advance: the URI spec and implementation herein do not in any way constitute "Tonal support". The changes to the spec irrationally demanded by the trolls involves making it absurdly more difficult for Tonal users (at no gain to Decimal users), and also makes it more difficult/annoying for Decimal users in the future when everyone is using milli- or micro-bitcoins. At the same time, their change is effectively attempting to repeat one of the known (and agreed by a general consensus, in numerous other forum threads) design flaws in the JSON-RPC protocol.

weavejester

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Looks like I was beaten to the punch

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: sirius on April 19, 2011, 02:38:08 AM

Any updates on this? I'd like to offer a 50BTC bounty for implementing bitcoin: URIs in the main client.

Does this satisfy your bounty (will MIT-license if so)?
http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/d88d78aa8ad6f085360e77294b2b0d7081ad4710
http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/7eb88f0cb6af6dd106fbec818f81af9b13318380

To test:

git checkout -b temporary_test_branch
git pull git://gitorious.org/~Luke-Jr/bitcoin/luke-jr-bitcoin.git bitcoinuri

Note this does NOT support the "label" and "message" parameters, as I didn't see a place for those in the send dialog. It also makes no attempt to register bitcoinuri with browsers (which all work differently in this regard).

To donate or pay bounty: bitcoin:19ut7h2sp9jKf5dpnK36FCPGu8L1cHnPSE (MIT licensing will commence when this reaches 50 BTC)

P.S. Please fix forum to accept bitcoin URIs in links Wink

weavejester

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

This issue is of some interest to me, so I'll try putting together a branch with a minimal implementation of URI handling. I'll initially support the "bitcoin:

" syntax, but without the additional parameters, which can be added later. URI handling will require RPC turned on, and I'm not going to attempt OS protocol registration for now.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: M4v3R on April 19, 2011, 06:35:44 AM

About implementation - I thought that implementing URI handlers is not a job for browser extensions, but the application itself registers the protocol in users operating system. So it's only a matter of implementing the protocol registration mechanism in Bitcoin client and we're done.

Registering is not even half the problem. Once it registers with the OS, it must actually handle such links as well.

M4v3R

hero member

Activity: 607

Merit: 500

About implementation - I thought that implementing URI handlers is not a job for browser extensions, but the application itself registers the protocol in users operating system. So it's only a matter of implementing the protocol registration mechanism in Bitcoin client and we're done.

sirius

sr. member

Activity: 429

Merit: 1002

Any updates on this? I'd like to offer a 50BTC bounty for implementing bitcoin: URIs in the main client.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Spesmilo also supports bitcoin: URIs

Matt Corallo

hero member

Activity: 755

Merit: 515

There is also a chrome extension which implements bitcoin: URI properly using RPC. Again, I dont think URI's need to be/are ever human readable. Its up to the client to make the tx human readable before it sends any BTC. How many links on the internet are readable by any average person and how many people actually read their links before clicking them?

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

I've got a working implementation of a bitcoin: URI handler in WalletBuddy. I assume that users won't be running Bitcoin all the time, so when such a link is clicked, it is sent to the payment queue. Any number of payments can be released from the payment queue to Bitcoin whenever Bitcoin is running.

I'm still working on some changes and fixes, but I hope to release an update with this functionality as well as some better documentation soon (hopefully this week).

Gavin Andresen

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 2301

Chief Scientist

All this endless talking about the Perfect URI Scheme is very nice.

So is anybody, you know, actually working on IMPLEMENTING something?

You'll need to know how to write browser plugins for Firefox/Safari/Chrome/IE and figure out how to pass arguments to a running bitcoin/bitcoind and know how the bitcoin/bitcoind will prompt the user to confirm the transaction. Oh, and figure out how to get the browser plugin(s) installed when bitcoin is installed.

Deciding on whether it is bitcoin:address or bitcoin://amount/address is the easy part, and I think whoever actually does the work of making this happen should define the standard.

khal

hero member

Activity: 540

Merit: 500

Here are the 2 proposed URI scheme :
- https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/URI_Scheme
- https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/X-btc

The second one proposes more actions than just "pay" :
- store an address in the address book,
- add a public/private key pair (and rescan blockchain),
- add a transaction (full data or just tx id ?)

Do we need some are all of this ?

Matt Corallo

hero member

Activity: 755

Merit: 515

I disagree, I think the best way to approach this is to examine the current URI scheme which is already implemented in several programs and to simply use that, why change what isn't broken?

Alex Beckenham

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

bitcoin:// is as standard as bitcoin: but as you noted more readable and much more psychologically acceptable for a layman due to similarity to http://

I thought something quite opposite... I thought the reason for using bitcoin: was that it's more psychologically acceptable for a layman due to similarity to mailto:

Matt Corallo

hero member

Activity: 755

Merit: 515

bitcoin: or bitcoin:// why not both, just remove the ? and it should work fine (maybe add the ? to after the address?). Plus again bitcoin: is already used so why not stick with it?

The only real problem I have with the current version is the use of X8 after numbers to indicate 10^8. However, if you read the documentation closely and look at the current implementations, using 10.8 is valid just not recommended. That said, there is an important reason for specifying X8, what if someone wants to change the decimal place in the future? Do we need to change all url/is just to support that?

Alex Beckenham

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: khal on March 30, 2011, 06:14:14 AM

This syntax is really awful... and the amount format... no comment.

The hex notation is optional, you can use decimal amounts too.

Topic: . - page 2. (Read 8002 times)