Yes, it would be possible to separate the address book from the messages.dat file. I'll add it to the list of requests although there are other priorities.
There is currently no way to command the deletion of content from the network; all content simply expires. Adding such a feature would be a drastic change. You should already be receiving messages on both clients if they share the same keys. As long as they each go online once every two days, they'll both receive all messages. If one stays online all the time and another goes online only once every four days then that second client will only receive half of the messages (from the last two days).
Topic: [ANNOUNCE] Bitmessage - P2P Messaging system based partially on Bitcoin - page 21. (Read 89873 times)
March 27, 2013, 06:23:19 PM
March 27, 2013, 02:15:23 AM
Two feature request (if they are possible):
- Can you divide the address book and messages? So that we can have: addressbook.dat and messages.dat
- Right now if I receive a message, it disappears from the network.
I mean that I'm not able to receive it from another client.
Is it possible to set a time expiration before deleting it from the network?
Something as it is now with the mail settings, where you can set to leave message on the server for X days.
So I can also have two different installation of Bitmessage (ex: in two different computer)
With installation A, I'll set to receive and maintain messages on the network for 10 days.
With the installation B, I'll set to receive the messages and delete them from the network.
If I'll open the installation B before the first one, then I won't be able to receive again messages on the installation A.
I know that messages that are older than X weeks will be deleted anyway from the network, I'm not asking to change this rule.
- Can you divide the address book and messages? So that we can have: addressbook.dat and messages.dat
- Right now if I receive a message, it disappears from the network.
I mean that I'm not able to receive it from another client.
Is it possible to set a time expiration before deleting it from the network?
Something as it is now with the mail settings, where you can set to leave message on the server for X days.
So I can also have two different installation of Bitmessage (ex: in two different computer)
With installation A, I'll set to receive and maintain messages on the network for 10 days.
With the installation B, I'll set to receive the messages and delete them from the network.
If I'll open the installation B before the first one, then I won't be able to receive again messages on the installation A.
I know that messages that are older than X weeks will be deleted anyway from the network, I'm not asking to change this rule.
March 24, 2013, 10:32:49 PM
The code should not be distributing and connecting to peer addresses for internal / site-specific / unrouted addresses.
You're right; it shouldn't. I will patch it appropriately tomorrow.
Thank you
March 24, 2013, 10:24:55 PM
Peer address issue...
The code should not be distributing and connecting to peer addresses for internal / site-specific / unrouted addresses.
Code:
Trying an outgoing connection to 10.10.10.1 : 8444
[...]
Could NOT connect to 10.10.10.1 during outgoing attempt. timed out
The code should not be distributing and connecting to peer addresses for internal / site-specific / unrouted addresses.
March 23, 2013, 09:51:07 PM
I doubt that because I can use your public key from the blockchain to encrypt messages against your will.
But then you can see whether or not I could successfully decrypt it and in some cases you can also see the plaintext (like if Bitmessage is being used on a server for some sort of communication). This additional information could be utilized. Cryptographers will tell you that it is bad practice to use the same key for encryption and signing. And if there are people on the forum telling everyone else that it is unsafe to share keys between Bitcoin and Bitmessage then no one is going to do it (not that I would want them to).
March 22, 2013, 09:28:11 AM
http://www.pyinstaller.org/ticket/522
EDIT: I was able to find a workaround. The currently published EXE should function like normal.
March 22, 2013, 06:12:57 AM
When I start the new version 0.2.7 it displays this error pop-up:
If I click OK the GUI appears and eventually connects to the network and appears to work normally.
If I click OK the GUI appears and eventually connects to the network and appears to work normally.
March 22, 2013, 03:22:51 AM
0.2.7
- Added API. See API Reference.
- Added error handling for the case where the client tries to send a message from an address for which the human has deleted the keys.
- Improved GUI messages when doing work (or pending work) for broadcast messages.
- Added error handling for the case where the proof of work takes practically no time.
- Added API. See API Reference.
- Added error handling for the case where the client tries to send a message from an address for which the human has deleted the keys.
- Improved GUI messages when doing work (or pending work) for broadcast messages.
- Added error handling for the case where the proof of work takes practically no time.
March 14, 2013, 01:05:35 PM
I doubt that because I can use your public key from the blockchain to encrypt messages against your will.
But then you can see whether or not I could successfully decrypt it and in some cases you can also see the plaintext (like if Bitmessage is being used on a server for some sort of communication). This additional information could be utilized. Cryptographers will tell you that it is bad practice to use the same key for encryption and signing. And if there are people on the forum telling everyone else that it is unsafe to share keys between Bitcoin and Bitmessage then no one is going to do it (not that I would want them to).
[...]
Actually I suppose that a bitcoin private key could be used to sign a message saying that they assert that new_pub_key_1 is to be used for signing and new_pub_key_2 is to be used for encryption. That would work. Then users could use their Bitcoin addresses in Bitmessage. This would require that users import their wallet keys into Bitmessage (or vise-versa).
[...]
Sounds like a plan Actually I suppose that a bitcoin private key could be used to sign a message saying that they assert that new_pub_key_1 is to be used for signing and new_pub_key_2 is to be used for encryption. That would work. Then users could use their Bitcoin addresses in Bitmessage. This would require that users import their wallet keys into Bitmessage (or vise-versa).
[...]
March 14, 2013, 12:12:55 PM
But to sign a message with a bitcoin address we use not the public key but the private key, right?
Right
is it possible to generate a different type of address (the label I threw out before was "Dual Address") which, unlike usual BM addresses, is the hash of the unique public key associated with a given bitcoin ECDSA private key (and possibly starts with "BTC-" instead of "BM-")?
Yes. We could also just use Bitcoin addresses at that point which might make users happier.
Is it actually impossible to get that idea to work with the BitMessage system?
Actually I suppose that a bitcoin private key could be used to sign a message saying that they assert that new_pub_key_1 is to be used for signing and new_pub_key_2 is to be used for encryption. That would work. Then users could use their Bitcoin addresses in Bitmessage. This would require that users import their wallet keys into Bitmessage (or vise-versa).
I believe that this is futile in any case: Bitcoin will (or at least should) someday switch to Pay-to-script-hash because it will help keep the long-term size of the blockchain down.
March 14, 2013, 10:19:45 AM
I doubt that because I can use your public key from the blockchain to encrypt messages against your will.
But then you can see whether or not I could successfully decrypt it and in some cases you can also see the plaintext (like if Bitmessage is being used on a server for some sort of communication). This additional information could be utilized. Cryptographers will tell you that it is bad practice to use the same key for encryption and signing. And if there are people on the forum telling everyone else that it is unsafe to share keys between Bitcoin and Bitmessage then no one is going to do it (not that I would want them to).
Thanks for the fast response!
But to sign a message with a bitcoin address we use not the public key but the private key, right?
Again I'm not suggesting the entire messaging system be reworked, just that a neat feature be added...is it possible to generate a different type of address (the label I threw out before was "Dual Address") which, unlike usual BM addresses, is the hash of the unique public key associated with a given bitcoin ECDSA private key (and possibly starts with "BTC-" instead of "BM-")?
Is it actually impossible to get that idea to work with the BitMessage system?
March 14, 2013, 09:22:28 AM
I doubt that because I can use your public key from the blockchain to encrypt messages against your will.
But then you can see whether or not I could successfully decrypt it and in some cases you can also see the plaintext (like if Bitmessage is being used on a server for some sort of communication). This additional information could be utilized. Cryptographers will tell you that it is bad practice to use the same key for encryption and signing. And if there are people on the forum telling everyone else that it is unsafe to share keys between Bitcoin and Bitmessage then no one is going to do it (not that I would want them to).
March 14, 2013, 06:30:24 AM
Random Thought:
Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).
Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.
My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?
People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!
Thoughts?
Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).
Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.
My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?
People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!
Thoughts?
A Bitmessage address can be turned into a Bitcoin address but a Bitcoin address cannot be turned into a Bitmessage address. This is because a Bitcoin address is a hash of one public key while a Bitmessage address is a hash of two public keys- one for encryption and one for signing. If we were to retool Bitmessage and use a Bitcoin address as a Bitmessage address, the first problem that comes to mind is that we would essentially be using an cryptographic key previously used for only signing now also for encryption which could leak information about the private key.
I don't think that Bitcoin and Bitmessage will ever share cryptographic keys although it is certainly possible, if Bitcoin and something like Namecoin are ever more integrated, to be able to derive one type of address from the other in a very user friendly way. This would have other benefits- anyone could send a bitcoin or a bitmessage to 'AsymmetricInformation' without having to deal with either type of address at all.
I doubt that because I can use your public key from the blockchain to encrypt messages against your will.
March 13, 2013, 04:46:56 PM
Random Thought:
Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).
Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.
My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?
People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!
Thoughts?
Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).
Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.
My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?
People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!
Thoughts?
A Bitmessage address can be turned into a Bitcoin address but a Bitcoin address cannot be turned into a Bitmessage address. This is because a Bitcoin address is a hash of one public key while a Bitmessage address is a hash of two public keys- one for encryption and one for signing. If we were to retool Bitmessage and use a Bitcoin address as a Bitmessage address, the first problem that comes to mind is that we would essentially be using an cryptographic key previously used for only signing now also for encryption which could leak information about the private key.
I don't think that Bitcoin and Bitmessage will ever share cryptographic keys although it is certainly possible, if Bitcoin and something like Namecoin are ever more integrated, to be able to derive one type of address from the other in a very user friendly way. This would have other benefits- anyone could send a bitcoin or a bitmessage to 'AsymmetricInformation' without having to deal with either type of address at all.
March 13, 2013, 10:53:20 AM
Random Thought:
Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).
Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.
My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?
People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!
Thoughts?
+1Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).
Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.
My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?
People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!
Thoughts?
March 13, 2013, 10:03:49 AM
Random Thought:
Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).
Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.
My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?
People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!
Thoughts?
Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).
Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.
My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?
People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!
Thoughts?
March 11, 2013, 04:56:33 PM
I was waiting for such thing for sooo long!!! I just found it today when I did my quarterly search for "decentral email". YAY!And thanks that it already has a portable mode. (Attachments would be awesome, of course.)
March 01, 2013, 10:54:38 AM
I'm continuing to observe the BitMessage client occasionally use 100% cpu without my doing anything. I left it running overnight and woke up to find it like this. In fact it was unresponsive and had to be killed using process explorer.
This is the latest version 0.2.6.
Thank you for reporting the problem. I'll keep it in mind to see if a cause can be identified. This is the latest version 0.2.6.
March 01, 2013, 06:43:17 AM
I'm continuing to observe the BitMessage client occasionally use 100% cpu without my doing anything. I left it running overnight and woke up to find it like this. In fact it was unresponsive and had to be killed using process explorer.
This is the latest version 0.2.6.
This is the latest version 0.2.6.
February 28, 2013, 04:30:02 PM
A web-based Bitmessage client should never exist. Just like that article talks about, there is no way to securely deliver the code. If HTTPS is secure and trustworthy then Bitmessage need-not exist. I argue that it isn't.
I was thinking about something like this as chrome app: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cryptocat/gonbigodpnfghidmnphnadhepmbabhijAnd working in backround, as this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chat-for-google/nckgahadagoaajjgafhacjanaoiihapd
Jump to: