rich1.0npub1pa6l5jatv92d4vzk566r58zjawpuu0we8nhrywfhp90f9948e0tsx3rxtphttps://nostr.ae/npub1pa6l5jatv92d4vzk566r58zjawpuu0we8nhrywfhp90f9948e0tsx3rxtpnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-04 📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote: > My view on this is mainly about the UX and the fact everyone in >> Bitcoinland has a wallet. >> > > Well, yes, but we also have browsers too :) > > Yes, but no one will ever install a plug in. And all will update their wallets with the last version, including the auth protocol. > I don't want to suggest the problem is unimportant - I'd love it if the > world could move beyond passwords. But I have many scars from my time in > the Google account swamps. We had a big team, lots of resources and even > just getting people to use their phone as a second factor - *the simplest > second factor possible* - was a huge uphill battle that most users just > didn't care about. People like passwords. If you can find a way to make > something that's better than a password but just as convenient, fantastic! > But I don't think Bitcoin addresses are such a thing. > I perfectly understand all the objections, and they are very good points. I have at least two wallets enthousiastic about the project so the protocol will be implemented and it will give some room to experiment. The BIP came from the idea we should formalize the standard so all wallets could participate, and it felt more logical to come forward with it. Maybe a better strategy would be to start "privately" with a few wallets and services using the protocol, and to come back to the BIP there is usability and traction. Eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140404/c8740919/attachment.html>