Author Topic: Bitshares needs robust stable wallet software that works!!  (Read 6317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Black Arrow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Yes, that is what I was referring to.  It works fine for me, at least for transferring balances.  But perhaps we can find out from one of the devs why it's considered "experimental".  Is it unstable?  Is it not secure?  What functionality does it lack?  And lastly, will balances in this web wallet transfer over to 2.0?  Thanks in advance.

OK. I set up an account there with a small amount of bts. It was easy to set up and looks pretty easy to use. I'll experiment with it. Unfortunately, it says it's a beta release so I'd hesitate to use it for large amounts. But at least for now, it looks like it will serve some of my needs. Thanks.

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't understand why this conversation is taking place considering a) there is currently an end-user web wallet available,

I assume you mean this: https://wallet.bitshares.org/

From the website, it looks like it might only be experimental but I'll check it out. Thanks for mentioning it. I wasn't aware of it.

Yes, that is what I was referring to.  It works fine for me, at least for transferring balances.  But perhaps we can find out from one of the devs why it's considered "experimental".  Is it unstable?  Is it not secure?  What functionality does it lack?  And lastly, will balances in this web wallet transfer over to 2.0?  Thanks in advance.

Offline sittingduck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
I see a lot of unfounded speculation.   Bytemaster never gave up on privacy he just didn't have a solution until block stream  published it on the same day 2.0 was announced.    It didn't take Bm long to recognize the value and integrate support. 

With the latest work of arghad on porting ct to JavaScript I bet gui integration takes higher priority. 

Bm is not a gui developer but has grown the gui team for 2.0 to a total of 5 or 6.   Even Nathan is doing gui work.  That leaves only 4 people doing backend work.   

Back seat managers think they can get more out of cass svk chronos and valentine James and  others don't know what they are talking about.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Black Arrow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't understand why this conversation is taking place considering a) there is currently an end-user web wallet available,

I assume you mean this: https://wallet.bitshares.org/

From the website, it looks like it might only be experimental but I'll check it out. Thanks for mentioning it. I wasn't aware of it.

Offline Black Arrow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't understand why this conversation is taking place considering a) there is currently an end-user web wallet available,

Have you had any experience with it? Do you have a link for this?

b) Bitshares 2.0 will launch with a new web wallet, and c)  Bitshares 2.0 will offer incentives for 3rd parties to create additional end-user wallets with their own value adds, and we know that Bitsapphire among others have already made headway along these lines.

Yes, Xeroc mentioned that above. If and when this happens and it works as advertised, I'll be very happy, but in the meantime I don't have a wallet that I can use without spending hours of time trying to upgrade yet again.

Please feel free to enlighten me if I'm missing something, but making an issue out of end-user wallet availability seems like either being negative for the sake of being negative, or just short-sighted. 

I'm very sorry if I've conveyed that impression. But unless I have wallet software that I can install/upgrade relatively painlessly, then effectively, I don't have a wallet and I can't experiment with many of the great features that are built into Bitshares. I think the frustration with the wallet software is driving away potential users. This has been an ongoing problem for a long time, and I would like to see more emphasis placed on resolving it.

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't understand why this conversation is taking place considering a) there is currently an end-user web wallet available, b) Bitshares 2.0 will launch with a new web wallet, and c)  Bitshares 2.0 will offer incentives for 3rd parties to create additional end-user wallets with their own value adds, and we know that Bitsapphire among others have already made headway along these lines.

With these things in mind, it seems to make perfect sense to commit all remaining resources to finishing off the 2.0 back-end infrastructure ASAP.  Please feel free to enlighten me if I'm missing something, but making an issue out of end-user wallet availability seems like either being negative for the sake of being negative, or just short-sighted.  Where am I going wrong here?

Offline phillyguy

I think one of the disconnects with the UI from the beginning has been that BM, the dev team and other high profile contributors are generally using OSX or Linux on machines with lots of available RAM...whereas many end users are using consumer windows machines that would not be considered "developer grade". (I could be completely wrong about this, just my impression from reading the forum for the past 12 months).

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Thom

i agree with the core dev team's focus on infrastructure; getting the system right is critical. wallets and other user apps should come from new entrants to our system who find sufficient value in the infrastructure to start designing their own businesses off of it.
This ... looking towards Moonstone and @Elmato 's mobile wallet ..

My question is, how much cooperation are these guys getting from CNX so the CNX UI effort and the UI efforts of Elmato & Moonstone are happening concurrently (i.e. treated like partners not competitors) ? Without that, development will be serial, and Elmato & Moonstone will have to wait on CNX to start their work. I doubt it's totally serial, and work has indeed already begun. It would be nice if the efforts could be parallel as much as possible.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Black Arrow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
i agree with the core dev team's focus on infrastructure; getting the system right is critical. wallets and other user apps should come from new entrants to our system who find sufficient value in the infrastructure to start designing their own businesses off of it.

Yes,backend infrastructure is important, but I've seen a lot of emphasis on increasing adoption through referral programs etc. And I won't be making any referrals  nor do I expect wide adoption without a working wallet with a simple and reliable update/installation procedure.

Offline Black Arrow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
i agree with the core dev team's focus on infrastructure; getting the system right is critical. wallets and other user apps should come from new entrants to our system who find sufficient value in the infrastructure to start designing their own businesses off of it.
This ... looking towards Moonstone and @Elmato 's mobile wallet ..

Offline cylonmaker2053

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1004
  • Saving the world one block at a time
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: cylonmaker2053
i agree with the core dev team's focus on infrastructure; getting the system right is critical. wallets and other user apps should come from new entrants to our system who find sufficient value in the infrastructure to start designing their own businesses off of it.

Offline Thom

You're not alone Black Arrow. The concerns over wallet usability have been raised more times than I care to count.

It is clear to me looking back over the progress of this project that the dev team is much more focused on the backend than the frontend. Collectively their passion is in the infrastructure not the user interface. Sure, they have a few devs like cass and jcalfee that are highly talented UI developers, but it's just not enough.

Moreover, the dev team leadership has not balanced resources for infrastructure vs. UI development, nor have they sought external resources to help balance the need for deeper engineering of the user interface.

It's easy to sit here and criticize the management decisions based on outcome, but to be fair none of us have all of the facts that contributed to where we are now. However, no matter what feedback is provided, it doesn't appear to me to result in a significant change to the management approach taken. This will hopefully change once CNX releases its grip on decisions when 2.0 is operational and decisions are based on public consensus. But I don't expect that will shift overnight, it is a process and will take some time to transition. It may happen overnight on paper in in practical reality most if not all of the initial guardians (delegates / workers / witnesses) will be CNX staff or heavily influenced by CNX staff. I don't see that as a problem generally (at least initially), but the longer CNX is perceived as decision makers and not the community BitShares won't truly be self directing based on consensus.

This is why I hope the community will continue to express their feedback - the stronger the better - to help guide the public consensus.  +5% to you Black Arrow for coming out of the shadows to do so, even at this late date.

Who knows, if we all shout loud enough in unison perhaps CNX will really turn up the heat and focus on the UI by shifting resources into UI development, including bringing in additional UI developers to refine the UX and accelerate mainstream adoption. I myself would love to see a healthy partnership between BitShares and Taulant's team on the Moonstone project, who have demonstrated their abilities not only in the quality of their user interfaces, but also in the area of project management.

Another thing to consider is the CNX business model. I don't think this has been discussed very much with the community, it seems to be shared only with a few "insiders". From what I gather, the focus of CNX is on exchanges, banks, big business, corporate interests first, individuals second. They're focused on the top layers of the pyramid hierarchy, not the base of the pyramid or end users. Viewed with that perspective the CNX approach to management and design makes sense. It is also a bit scary for hard core crypto-currency enthusiasts that want a safe, secure and private alternative to the mainstream financial system. There are conflicts in the model. It's like building a skyscraper with controlled demolition built in so that one day it will be easier to collapse the building to make way for something else, the "ultimate" planned obsolescence if you will. I have seen others express similar perspectives, tho not nearly as strongly. It remains to be seen whether a BitShares "house" will be able to stand or if it will be divided by the conflicting interests of privacy and regulation. In my view one or the other will become dominant and push the other out.

If CNX's view were closer to the individual, more effort on the UI / UX would have been given. Even privacy concerns were less important than transaction rate until very recently, where Bytemaster announced there would be infrastructure in place at the initial launch of 2.0 (blinded balances and stealth transactions), but without UI support. I see this as a good change, although it would be better if UI support were included. Bytemaster now has realized how fundamentally important privacy is and is correcting the earlier (bad) decision to launch without concern for privacy. He realized that without provision for privacy, all account balances would become public at the launch of 2.0. I don't know if that was a factor in reversing the decision to implement privacy after the launch of 2.0, but if not just goes to show how many aspects of the entire 2.0 push have not been thoroughly thought through. It also shows how agile the CNX team can be, if necessary.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2015, 05:42:31 pm by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Black Arrow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
BitShares 2.0 will have a smooth, stable and reactive web wallet .. current source can be seen in github and looks (and feels) awesome ..
Just wait for BTS2.0 to arrive!

Thanks. I really hope that's true and if it is I'll be a lot more optimistic about Bitshares. In the meantime, I'm just going to sit tight and wait.

Offline cylonmaker2053

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1004
  • Saving the world one block at a time
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: cylonmaker2053
BitShares 2.0 will have a smooth, stable and reactive web wallet .. current source can be seen in github and looks (and feels) awesome ..
Just wait for BTS2.0 to arrive!

awesome! still, i can't wait for greater adoption and incentive for entrepreneurs to start putting together alt BTS/SmartCoin wallets.