Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANNOUNCE] Bitmessage - P2P Messaging system based partially on Bitcoin - page 25. (Read 89873 times)

sr. member
Activity: 249
Merit: 251
Ok, it works now Smiley

Anyway, it always open 2 processes.


Excellent!

It does the exact same thing on my computer; I think it has to do with they way PyInstaller packages up the EXE. I've seen other programs do this too like Flash and Chrome.
staff
Activity: 4270
Merit: 1209
I support freedom of choice
Ok, it works now Smiley

Anyway, it always open 2 processes.
sr. member
Activity: 249
Merit: 251
- I can't open "settings"
- If I click the red dot at botton right Bitmessage stop responding to clicks.
- Why does it run 2 instances?

Sorry about that, I've recompiled the EXE and it works now.
http://bitmessage.org/download/windows/Bitmessage.exe
I'm not sure what you mean about it running two instances. Is that still happening?

Can you add a update available notification on next version?
When development slows down a little bit I'll have a default item on the 'Subscriptions' tab for just that purpose.
staff
Activity: 4270
Merit: 1209
I support freedom of choice
- I can't open "settings"
- If I click the red dot at botton right Bitmessage stop responding to clicks.
- Why does it run 2 instances?
staff
Activity: 4270
Merit: 1209
I support freedom of choice
Can you add a update available notification on next version?
sr. member
Activity: 249
Merit: 251
For two days i am not able to connect to any nodes : /

@Atheros: do you have any 'broadcast message' address to listen to?


The older default bootstrap nodes have gone offline. If you are running from source, you can upgrade to the latest source code files, delete knownNodes.dat from your applicationdata/PyBitmessage folder, then it will work. Evidently I need a DNS-based method of listing bootstrap nodes like Bitcoin uses to avoid this problem. EDIT: I have patched Bitmessage to use DNS bootstrapping. If you upgrade to v0.1.6, it should connect.

No, I don't have any nodes sending out random broadcast messages. I bet after an API is added, someone will start making services like a daily news service to which people can subscribe.

donator
Activity: 674
Merit: 523
For two days i am not able to connect to any nodes : /

@Atheros: do you have any 'broadcast message' address to listen to?
sr. member
Activity: 249
Merit: 251
Why not make it so one can use a Bitcoin address / keypair for messaging?

Bitcoin and Bitmessage keys will be interchangeable. Today I coded the key generation sections; Bitmessage will even save keys in Wallet Import Format.

However Bitmessage will use two keys- one for encryption and one for signing. Thus Bitcoin addresses (which are only a hash of a signing key) wouldn't be sufficient for Bitmessage. It seems to me that Bitmessage addresses could be turned into Bitcoin addresses but not the other way around.
vip
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1140
The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)
Why not make it so one can use a Bitcoin address / keypair for messaging?  So in other words, one could encrypt a message for the owner of a Bitcoin address.

Seems to me the following should be possible for any Bitcoin address whose public key is known:

1. assume the known pubkey is Gx
2. pick a random integer y
3. compute Gxy
4. isolate the X-component of Gxy for use as the key for symmetric encryption e.g. AES256
5. pick a random IV and encrypt the message with the symmetric cipher
5. serialize Gy, the IV, and the AES256 ciphertext.

The recipient, knowing his private key x, recomputes Gxy because he knows Gy.  Basically it's using the Bitcoin public key in a Diffie-Hellman key exchange, and then sending a message encrypted by the derived key.
sr. member
Activity: 249
Merit: 251
given these concerns, how could they be addressed or remedied with bitmessage?  

I suppose that depends on how the imposters confuse people. If they trick people into believe that they are someone else by using a trusted username in the wrong channel or if they pretend to be new users by changing their nick to that of the new user who failed to register it, then Bitmessage would help by
1. Making it impossible to change one's identity to that of another person
2. Avoiding the whole registering a username issue except to add your Bitmessage address to the web-of-trust.

However Bitmessage lacks the same chatroom interface as IRC. Bitmessage is more like email currently. Chatrooms could be implemented if users reveal their IP to a server (or use Tor). So far I haven't thought of, and no one has suggested a way to do IM or chatrooms without revealing one's IP (without Tor).
full member
Activity: 367
Merit: 100
If the web-of-trust is centralized (which I am currently under the impression is the case), why isn't the messaging system also?

I think IRC is used as a messaging platform out of convenience.  but this lends to various issues in the system (imposters, unauthenticated/unverified users, confusion).

since we don't control the connect/login process of IRC (most newer users use the webchat irc client, and have no pre-registered NickServ identity) we can't enforce or even educate new users at that point about registrations.  While we could make the formal OTC channel require registration and identification, that will either exclude such users that don't know about registration, or push them to another channel (often called the "foyer") with less supervision of experienced and helpful users; there they are even more vulnerable to malicious users.

one solution might be to run our own ircd, with perhaps some modifications or an informative MOTD (but who reads those, really? especially among new users?), but this has it's own challenges and requires resources.  and this is getting off topic for this thread so I'll stop here.

--------

given these concerns, how could they be addressed or remedied with bitmessage?  (and maybe this merits a separate thread as well, rather than cluttering up this one)

-fb
sr. member
Activity: 249
Merit: 251
very cool. glad to find this.

would like to see if this could be a good fit to replace our reliance on IRC for OTC trading.

the issues with using IRC are:
- multiplicity of systems (irc with nickserv identification vs. bot-based gpg/btc authentication), not tightly integrated
- relying on third party to provide network of irc servers
- IRC very liberal in allowing anyone to use any name (except where registered and enforced through nickserv)
- no default IRC security/authentication

it's a big headache for new users and a gold mine for scammers.  but even if you are not directly a victim, the prevalence of scamming still adds to the cost of doing business or discourages new adopters in the economy.

I understand that bitmessage might not be ready for primetime, but I'd be glad to explore it and see what we can make of it for future use.

I've never used the OTC market but if those are the issues then it certainly seems like it would be useful. Identities could simply be a Bitmessage address and wouldn't need to be registered. People might want a way of displaying nicknames in the market but it must be clear to newbies that anyone can set their nickname to anything they want. Pardon my ignorance but I have a question: If the web-of-trust is centralized (which I am currently under the impression is the case), why isn't the messaging system also?

-------------------------------------------

Current upgrade status: New encryption library is working; Currently writing paper describing updated protocol; new protocol message specification is up on the wiki though it is still subject to change.
full member
Activity: 367
Merit: 100
very cool. glad to find this.

would like to see if this could be a good fit to replace our reliance on IRC for OTC trading.

the issues with using IRC are:
- multiplicity of systems (irc with nickserv identification vs. bot-based gpg/btc authentication), not tightly integrated
- relying on third party to provide network of irc servers
- IRC very liberal in allowing anyone to use any name (except where registered and enforced through nickserv)
- no default IRC security/authentication

it's a big headache for new users and a gold mine for scammers.  but even if you are not directly a victim, the prevalence of scamming still adds to the cost of doing business or discourages new adopters in the economy.

I understand that bitmessage might not be ready for primetime, but I'd be glad to explore it and see what we can make of it for future use.
legendary
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
DARKNETMARKETS.COM
New version 0.1.3 released 18th of December. Where is changelog? Why there is not update on forum thread?

Here is the Changelog: http://bitmessage.org/wiki/Changelog
New version 0.1.4 released today.
I'll update the forum thread more when Bitmessage is upgraded to use ECC.

New features in 0.1.4:

    Added support for SOCKS4a and SOCKS5 proxies
    Adjusted UI so that it looks appropriate on OS X
    Changed UI to accept Bitmessage addresses which lack a "BM-". This makes copying and pasting easier.
    Fixed OS X issue: if user minimized client to tray then restored, segmentation fault occured
    Added locks to prevent ill-effect if the client receives the same object from two different nodes at the exact same time
    Commented out code that prevents the client from accepting a second connection from the same IP since this prevents users from running two clients within the same local network. When the Bitmessage network grows, this code will be re-enabled.
Link to changelog should be visible on main page - http://bitmessage.org/wiki/Main_Page
Right now, there is no way to find it.
staff
Activity: 4270
Merit: 1209
I support freedom of choice
I'm trying to use Bitmessage through Tor proxy, but it doesn't seem to work.
It connects, but it seems not sending/receiving anything.
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
I'm excited for this, and I hope it gets more attention and developers on board; pretty amazing concept IMO.
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1003
I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man
Whoa... How did i miss this, I'm working on a C version of P2P encrypted messaging using RSA, I like your white paper looks like it describes an anti-spam measure like hashcash(or comparable to bitcoin)

https://github.com/Xenland/P2P-Crypt
sr. member
Activity: 249
Merit: 251
New version 0.1.3 released 18th of December. Where is changelog? Why there is not update on forum thread?

Here is the Changelog: http://bitmessage.org/wiki/Changelog
New version 0.1.4 released today.
I'll update the forum thread more when Bitmessage is upgraded to use ECC.

New features in 0.1.4:

    Added support for SOCKS4a and SOCKS5 proxies
    Adjusted UI so that it looks appropriate on OS X
    Changed UI to accept Bitmessage addresses which lack a "BM-". This makes copying and pasting easier.
    Fixed OS X issue: if user minimized client to tray then restored, segmentation fault occured
    Added locks to prevent ill-effect if the client receives the same object from two different nodes at the exact same time
    Commented out code that prevents the client from accepting a second connection from the same IP since this prevents users from running two clients within the same local network. When the Bitmessage network grows, this code will be re-enabled.
legendary
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
DARKNETMARKETS.COM
New version 0.1.3 released 18th of December. Where is changelog? Why there is not update on forum thread?
Pages:
Jump to: