Project Decorum - Wallet Release

[Sascha]

@Seneca

Are you on browser 0.7?

@Sascha

Can we have 0.7 in the Debian repository, please?

A little off topic, but still. It appears some testing confusion stems from the fact that people forget what version of Safe browser they have installed. I still think this could be helped by making sure the browser and other components are always consistently updated in the repositories.

Compare:

sascha@computer ~ $ emacs --version
GNU Emacs 24.5.1

vs.

sascha@computer ~ $ safe-browser --version
[AUTO-UPDATE] Error: Disabled. Only available on macOS and Windows.
(Browser starting)

Adding something like “About browser → Version” to the browser window itself would also help, I think.

[whiteoutmashups]

the “names” tab just means ID’s right?

& is there a github for this?

would love to work with it

[whiteoutmashups]

& how many “whiteoutmashups” do you guys want???

Sent 9 to polpolrene. lucky guy.

Can we only see our own coins on the explorer? I don’t see a way to look up someone else’s address or name. Is it possible? or hidden, due to the nature of SAFE / Safecoin, unlike BTC

[19eddyjohn75]

@whiteoutmashups

? I don’t see a way to look up someone else’s address or name. Is it possible?

I think it would be possible, because it was possible in SAFE Wallet, so maybe that feature was not added to the Decorum wallet yet. Also the message field is not present in this wallet, nevertheless serious mindblown stuff.

Next time when people doubting the SAFE Network come along, send them some coins.

[whiteoutmashups]

Not sure though, as it might require access to that person’s data container before you can see the balances.

Definitely might just be blockchain thinking incorrectly applied to SAFE, once again

[19eddyjohn75]

@whiteoutmashups

I don’t see a way to look up someone else’s address or name.

In SAFE Wallet it was possible, so probably in future versions of Decorum wallet also.

@whiteoutmashups

as it might require access to that person’s data container before you can see the balances.

I don’t think there is something like an explorer yet and that that might come later when we have datachain and some transactions set to public, so you won’t be able to see someones complete balance.

[intrz]

Seems like I can’t send anything anymore it just says “Invalid handle: 618f0e3dbe6820f441e174d0ebcac6a6329bcf951c428df32f32a2a5f5182611” under “New transaction”. The hex number varies.

When I click on one of my wallets it also says invalid handle

[Zoki]

I got something similar. Close the browser, reopen and relogin

[digipl]

Work Ok for me. I just made a transfer without problems.

The big problem is the limits in the actual TestNet. With only 1000 operation this App can spend a good part in a few minutes.

Thanks guys, Please, don’t send me more transfers. I’m rich enough.

[Zoki]

@digipl

With only 1000 operation this App can spend a good part in a few minutes.

And this is why there will be a demand for SAFEcoins, and also incentive to farm. There are going to be apps that people want to use, for that fresh SAFENet experience.

[intrz]

Seems the issue was that I have multiple versions of the browser and accidentally used version 0.6

[19eddyjohn75]

@bochaco @Seneca I can’t send tokens from one wallet to another wallet, please feature request

[bzee]

You should be able to. Every wallet has an inbox address that you can send to, as well as the option to point a public ID to one of your wallets.

[Seneca]

I think he means to send coins between @bochaco’s wallet app and ours. They use different protocols, that’s why they’re incompatible. Ideally we’ll end up with one extensible wallet framework to which new coin protocols plugins could be added or something like that.

[anon40790172]

@whiteoutmashups

Sent 9 to polpolrene. lucky guy.

What’s your Public-ID where your wallet is at??

[Traktion]

@Seneca

I got this error: traktion has no Decorum inbox

Please couple a wallet to your name on the Names page in the web-app!

Fixed!

BTW, I was using v0.6 of the browser and was getting all sorts of invalid handle errors, but v0.7 resolved them!

[oetyng]

Finally sat down with new browser.
@Seneca, what a great contribution!
The token protocol is very interesting.

Btw, I played around transferring between two wallets, and it took ~10s before a balance was updated.
After about 5 rounds back and forth, I was up at ~20s
8 rounds, ~29s
9, ~32s
11 ~37s

Going back to the topic linked by @anon40790172 I found this:

@Seneca

If there’s a history of 10K transaction to validate, that’s 3 MB of data. To prevent having to download them one by one which would be incredibly slow, the sender of the transaction could send a list of all addresses of the transaction history rather than just the address of the last one. That list would in this case be 320 KB. Now the recipient can start downloading them in parallel and then verify them.

There’d be 10K signatures to verify. I read in a paper that a 2010 Intel Xeon quadcore CPU that’s now a little over a hundred dollars can verify 71K Ed25519 signatures per second. Even if you have an outdated desktop CPU, verifying those 10K signatures likely won’t take longer than a second, assuming optimised software.

So I’m not worried about this, even with hundreds of thousands or even millions of transactions to verify in the very distant future (when computing will be even faster), I don’t think verification will need to take longer than 5-10 seconds. Computing speed increases may very well outpace transaction history growth.

Great stuff!
So, I guess this list is not sent now, and we’re doing a sequential download of transactions currently?
Is this still the solution you’re planning?

[Zoki]

Omniprotocol will be replaced by this. … that’s if any other token is needed at all after SAFENetwork is released.

Omnicoin? No thanks, give me some of them decorum coins.

Edit: and a large chunk of the etherium network too.

The speeds here are just mind blowing.

[Seneca]

@oetyng

So, I guess this list is not sent now, and we’re doing a sequential download of transactions currently?

Is this still the solution you’re planning?

Yes and yes! Plus we can also make the transaction history list considerably smaller by using a 160 bit hashing algorithm like RIPEMD-160 for transaction identifiers rather than simply SHA-3 (256), making the example history of 10K transactions 200 KB rather than 320 KB.

[DavidMc0]

I’m looking forward to playing: DavidMc0 - please send some tokens