Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1V7lX0-0007NX-S2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:10:58 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.219.53]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1V7lWz-00011d-JT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:10:58 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id k18so6855221oag.12 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 05:10:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.47.230 with SMTP id g6mr356372oen.62.1376050252179; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 05:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.84.231 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 05:10:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <54F09675-D6A7-4415-82F1-920248E8188D@grabhive.com> References: <54F09675-D6A7-4415-82F1-920248E8188D@grabhive.com> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:10:52 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: S8sHpq10XcgGML-cxeR9mXp_k3I Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Wendell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2db587972bc04e382aa1d X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1V7lWz-00011d-JT Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] SPV client in pure JavaScript? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:10:59 -0000 --001a11c2db587972bc04e382aa1d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Code that runs inside NativeClient has the same access level as JavaScript does. It's just a way to do things faster. Distribution as a Chrome app via the Chrome store is a fine approach, as long as people understand it's just an app platform like any other. It has pros and cons that must be weighed up. For instance, Chrome for mobile doesn't really do apps, at least not at the moment. Also, you're still limited by what APIs Chrome exposes, which are a strict subset of what a real OS provides. On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Wendell wrote: > Right, I'm not suggesting that we have this wallet in a web app, but > rather precisely what you are talking about: using special browser > features, and bundling it. I am fundamentally monoculture-opposed, but > given Chrome's present installed base, that initial target makes sense to > me, provided that we could have a one-click installation (as per normal, > via the Chrome Store). > > Chrome also has this "Native Client" plug-in: I know next to nothing about > it, and this goes off the rails of the Subject, but perhaps an SPV > implementation there could be a solution to the concerns you expressed? > > -wendell > > grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411 > > On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > > > JavaScript is turing complete so of course it can be done. The real > question you're asking is, can it be done in a web app? I think the answer > is I think "no" because web apps aren't allowed to make raw TCP socket > connections. > > > > Now there may be a way around that by using browser-specific things like > extensions or "installable apps" which give your code greater access > permissions. This approach means you essentially use Chrome as your app > platform instead of a JVM, the assumption presumably being that more users > have Chrome than a JVM. The flip side is that users who don't would > probably balk at the idea of installing an entire browser in order to run a > wallet app, whereas a JVM can be bundled and the resulting app acts like > any other. I don't know of a convenient way to "statically link" Chrome > into a regular-looking application. > > > > I personally wouldn't find such a design compelling. Whilst Java isn't > exactly a great language, JavaScript is significantly worse in virtually > all aspects. I don't understand why anyone would want to use JavaScript > outside the browser - you get less safety, less performance, fewer > features, less mature tools and so on. If the end result is an installable > app like any other, all you did is cripple yourself vs the competition > that's using languages/platforms designed for it. > --001a11c2db587972bc04e382aa1d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Code that runs inside NativeClient has the same access lev= el as JavaScript does. It's just a way to do things faster.

Distribution as a Chrome app via the Chrome store is a fine approac= h, as long as people understand it's just an app platform like any othe= r. It has pros and cons that must be weighed up. For instance, Chrome for m= obile doesn't really do apps, at least not at the moment. Also, you'= ;re still limited by what APIs Chrome exposes, which are a strict subset of= what a real OS provides.


On Fri,= Aug 9, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Wendell <w@grabhive.com> wrote:
Right, I'm not suggesting that we have this wallet in a web app, but ra= ther precisely what you are talking about: using special browser features, = and bundling it. I am fundamentally monoculture-opposed, but given Chrome&#= 39;s present installed base, that initial target makes sense to me, provide= d that we could have a one-click installation (as per normal, via the Chrom= e Store).

Chrome also has this "Native Client" plug-in: I know next to noth= ing about it, and this goes off the rails of the Subject, but perhaps an SP= V implementation there could be a solution to the concerns you expressed?

-wendell

grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411

On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:48 PM, M= ike Hearn wrote:

> JavaScript is turing complete so of course it can be done. The real qu= estion you're asking is, can it be done in a web app? I think the answe= r is I think "no" because web apps aren't allowed to make raw= TCP socket connections.
>
> Now there may be a way around that by using browser-specific things li= ke extensions or "installable apps" which give your code greater = access permissions. This approach means you essentially use Chrome as your = app platform instead of a JVM, the assumption presumably being that more us= ers have Chrome than a JVM. The flip side is that users who don't would= probably balk at the idea of installing an entire browser in order to run = a wallet app, whereas a JVM can be bundled and the resulting app acts like = any other. I don't know of a convenient way to "statically link&qu= ot; Chrome into a regular-looking application.
>
> I personally wouldn't find such a design compelling. Whilst Java i= sn't exactly a great language, JavaScript is significantly worse in vir= tually all aspects. I don't understand why anyone would want to use Jav= aScript outside the browser - you get less safety, less performance, fewer = features, less mature tools and so on. If the end result is an installable = app like any other, all you did is cripple yourself vs the competition that= 's using languages/platforms designed for it.

--001a11c2db587972bc04e382aa1d--