A Firefox plugin would be a great product if it worked without the Bitcoin server serving the JSON requests in the background.
Without the Bitcoin server I would think it might require ESP or some other magic. Perhaps the Borg 'hive mind'.
That would require some way to make it communicate with the Bitcoin network, but I don't know if Firefox plugins can do that.
That's what I thought the JSON features were for. We already have the server and network capabilities. Firefox plugins can do just about anything as I'm only just discovering. It would seem to me (correct me if I am wrong anybody), that it's only a matter of integrating data (from the existing JSON interface) with their custom APIs and packaging the code for the installer. All the 'plugin' (actually the UI code is an
'extension' in the proper vernacular - collectively called add-ons) functionality in Firefox, is made to be very promiscuous with JavaScript (and hasn't that grown up lately?
). But there are many languages (or so it is written), that can be used to create add-ons. I toyed with JS, back when nobody thought it could do much but gimmickry and futz. I'm intrigued at the way it's been transformed.
What I had in mind was, to take the unnecessary GUI elements out of the server code, trimming it down to the server and command line/JSON functionality, then embellish that with the Mozzila API's, to create the Firefox UI and interface the JSON data with it. I am supposing that the existing server code (minus GUI) might be packed up into the add-on and installed all at once. That would actually be an extension I think, unless the server executes as a separate process and only the UI code is run in the browser, which might make it a plugin.
. In anycase the important thing, is that the user can install the whole thing as a single add-on and avoid the existing download install first. Otherwise the Bitcoin add-on, creates an extra install process and that kinda takes the shine off the easy install provided by the browser.
Payment links could be done without a browser plugin, using a specific URI as proposed in this thread.
Hmm.. Sounds great. It did cross my mind but I have never gone into how the browser derives it's URI functionality and it just seemed like a thing you would have to make a universal standard. So if there's a way to define a URI then why not? So much the better. This would still be an independent feature that could be implemented with or with out either the stand alone GUI server, or the browser add-on version. If it could be implicitly (by default) a conventional link (allowing code with information pop-up and a download dialog box to run), but explicitly a Bitcoin URI, then you could get the link to be active, regardless of whether Bitcoin is installed. If it is then do 'transfer dialog', else [NOTE: You need bitcoin installed to make this transaction...], then, Download/install dialog then, transfer dialog. I wonder if URI can have conditional properties like that.
Thanks for the feedback sirius-m
