I remember hearing in a podcast that openbazaar.org tried this approach but because of unreliable clients parts of the network would be completely unaccessible. They then went with a partially decentralized solution with a few main nodes always supporting the system. I'm not sure what has changed in the design since that podcast episode though.
I'm not sure which podcast that was. Currently content is served by others that have viewed that content, but new content gets pushed to a few configurable nodes to store that content before anybody has viewed it. This allows vendors to make changes and shutdown the software immediately instead of needing to wait until somebody has viewed their change.
Can we put the FMtokens cryptocurrency name in the title? This may scare people who invested in other adult entertainment coins such as SpankChain (https://spankchain.com/)
"After Lastpass got acquired by LogMeIn last year I decided to start looking elsewhere. Being a software developer myself, I turned toward open source solutions but it immediately became apparent that nothing existed that was as convenient and as user friendly as Lastpass. I also realized that everyone seemed to charge money for these closed-source solutions (and rightfully so I suppose, a password manager is essential!).
bitwarden was born from this search and I have been developing on it every night since. This week marks the complete 1.0.0 release of bitwarden! There are apps for iOS and Android on the stores, browser extensions for Chrome, Firefox, and Opera, and a convenient website vault. It's free, open source, and cross platform.
Feel free to let me know any feedback that you may have or if you are interested in contributing in any way. You can check out the main product website at https://bitwarden.com/"
I don't know how much development went into it since it was abandoned by Mitro / adopted by Passopolis, but Passopolis is live and I'm using it very happily.
I truly hope the project will live on and improve even further, but it's already amazingly useful for our team and a pleasure to use.
Isn't keeping the key not on the client more secure. If the encrypted data is on the client then the key would have to be on the client at some point to decrypt it. If my phone is jailbroken it wouldn't be too hard to extract the key and depending on the security of the app it may be likely that this key is used for every client.
Not true at all! At least in Toronto most of the companies here are hiring Java programmers like crazy. Depends where you want to work, I assume in the Valley it's all Node, Ruby, iOS. I guess Android is all java as well.
Am I the only one who prefers regular gchat to google hangouts? It's super difficult to figure out who on my contact list is online or not. I also mistake old msgs as new ones because of the lack of time-stamps. Maybe I'm missing a check-box or something that could fix all this but I gave up and switched back to gchat almost immediately.
I complained about this for a while, but then I saw someone use Hangouts on mobile. I suddenly realized why Google designed it this way. Of course the designers noticed that it was hard to determine who was offline and who was online. In fact, that's the whole point.
Google is incrementally eliminating the distinction between the online and offline world. Pretty soon, the concept of offline won't exist anymore -- everyone will be thought of as online all the time.
But there's no place for old-style instant messaging in this mental model. So they're moving away from it. But they can't make this change all at once, so they're doing it slowly. When the distinction goes away, Hangouts will be just like SMS. If you think about it, Apple already beat them to this with iMessage, and Google is playing catch-up. But instead of launching a new product, Google is just extending their existing IM ecosystem to take over the SMS space.
And yet GVoice probably still won't support MMS, it'll be forced to the hangouts protocol and you'd be screwed if you want to send an MMS to a non-Android phone.
That seems like a good idea but I only use gchat on my PC, for my phone it's text messages. I don't like it when someone assumes that I'm on my PC and starts to have a conversation with me as when I'm on the go I'm not able to have a serious chat. At least with txt msgs both parties know that you may not respond in time and that you may be brief with your responses.
Yes, I used gchat for its instant-messaging purposes, which is essentially what the app is all about. Hangouts pretty much got rid of anything instant about it (online/offline, away indicator, status messages, etc.). I eagerly looked forward to Hangouts and installed it the day Google announced it only to switch back to Talk an hour or two later.
I suppose I wouldn't care if I didn't have gchat on 100% of the time I'm on a desktop but I dread the day Hangouts replaces Talk.
Just switched back to check this out. I see the green bar under only one of my friends but the rest that are online or away don't have this. Do they also have to have hangouts enabled for me to see that?
Also, I understand that they are trying to make things minimal and look cool but it's not something that's very intuitive or noticeable. I thought it might have meant that I have a chat window open with that person.
How is hangouts minimal ?
In old gchat you have lines of text - very efficient and natural. In new hangouts you have a lot of empty space, graphics and overall about 4x less text in the same amount of space. It's huge UI fail in my opinion.
Fortunately there is still an option to switch back.
As it is currently, Hangouts is not a real time communications service. It's a messaging service. Unfortunately for the Hangout team, Gmail is the superior messaging service.
The real shame is that Google already had a fantastic offering and they killed something beautiful: an integrated product that included a real time communication client (gchat), a messaging service (gmail), and a group/community based social network (g+).
The worst thing about the new Google Hangouts is that it doesn't expose the phone numbers associated with some of the Google Contacts. So in order to make a phone call, I'd have to recall the number and type it in the search bar. Typing the name in the search bar won't reveal that person's phone number either. This is more intuitively done in the old Google Chat which has a phone button which reveals the numbers. So sometimes I can call and sometimes I can chat with the same person. And searching the name reveals number(s) as well.
This is why I suspect they've drug their feet on Google Voice integration. They want to make that seamless. You want to call [Person] and you shouldn't have to even think about whether it's over Hangouts or PTSN.
That's what Google Voice will give them. You call them from the Hangouts app and they pass it through Google Voice if they're not signed into any Hangout machines. It roughly works this way already for existing GV users.
Calls incoming to my Google Voice number already ring in Hangouts for me - I actually use that any time I have to do phone conferencing now, since I can just use my computer headset rather than futzing with a phone headset.
Oh god, I love it. My computer even rings a good second or two before my phone so I can hit Pause on my keyboard (Spotify pauses) and then click "Answer". I've got a usb headset with decent speaker-drivers so I can listen to music while I work and switch between Lync/Hangout calls easily.
That's actually good. But the issue I was highlighting was about making calls. Not that Hangouts cannot make a phone call - it's just that I don't want to remember all the numbers of my contacts.
That's a little extreme and useless to put only one app on the IPhone dock. I could see this becoming extremely frustrating in an emergency situation where you need to call someone quickly. Why not just practice self control instead.
