Amir Taaki [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-07-09 📝 Original message:This page really does ...

📅 Original date posted:2012-07-09
📝 Original message:This page really does matter to alternative clients. If you measure the click through statistics, then they are a significant portion of the
traffic. By removing this page, you are directly stunting Bitcoin's
growth.

The only thing that's changed between now and this morning is:

- Addition of Bitcoin Wallet for Android
- Randomisation of entries

I actually got permission from everyone involved before making the page.If you want to remove the page, then we should see a vote by:

- laanwj
- gavin
- sipa
- jgarzik
- BlueMatt
- Diapolo
- luke-jr
- you
- jim from multibit
- gary rowe
- ThomasV
- me
- etotheipi
- Andreas Schildbach
- justmoon
- Mike Hearn
You're proposing to remove the page. You know, and I know and I know that you know that nobody visits the Wiki. Your proposal is not "move to Wiki" really but remove from bitcoin.org. Keep bitcoin.org for Bitcoin-Qt only which is against the stated goals of the rest of your team members (gavin, sipa, jgarzik).


Have you tried the new clients? I've tried all 4, and they are all well written.

Try the new version of Electrum, https://gitorious.org/electrum/electrum - it's more featureful and secure than Bitcoin-Qt what with deterministic wallets, brain-wallets, prioritising addresses, frozen addresses, offline transactions - none of which Bitcoin-Qt has.

MultiBit is also very good with QR integration and the ability for merchants to quickly set themselves up. It's full of guiding help text, and has this paradigm to allow people to work with keys.


Bitcoin Wallet for Android has one of the best bitcoin UIs I've seen and is extremely well thought out in how the user navigates through the software.

The Bitcoin network could function perfectly fine with Electrum nodes and
miners. You would still have miners and we wouldn't have the problem now with huge blocks because miners would be economically incentivised to
keep blocks small. But that's another discussion.

Technically speaking, the randomisation is fine now. It achieves its intended effect, as the page is regenerated daily.

This does not need to be a source of arguing. I see no problem with having this page be a neutral overview of the main clients (as we all agreed together in the beginning):
- Source must be public, and users must be able to run from source.
- Description should be non-spammy and neutral sounding. Cover the negative aspects.
Randomisation of the order simply makes that fairer. Alphabetical is not a good option (as others have suggested) because it can be gamed.

There is absolutely no reason to remove this page unless you think bitcoin.org is only for Bitcoin-Qt which is against the wishes of gavin, sipa, jgarzik, and the long-term stated goal of bitcoin.org as a neutral resource for the community.



----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com>
Cc: "bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net" <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Random order for clients page

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com> wrote:
> JS randomisation is bad. People shouldn't need JS to view a webpage.

JS randomization doesn't imply needing JS to view the page. It implies
needing JS to see it in random order.  You could also combine it with
the server-side randomization if you care about non-js being non
random, though I don't think it matters.

As others have pointed out I don't generally think the randomization
is good in principle, but if its done it should at least achieve its
goals.

> Only you have a problem with this page. I don't see why Bitcoin-Qt needs to be first either when it dominates the front page. It is perfectly fine as it is.

I'll let other people speak for themselves, but I did consult others
before reverting your last batch of changes.

More generally, we have pull requests in order to get some peer review
of changes.  Everyone should use them except for changes which are
urgent or trivially safe.  (Presumably everyone with access knows how
to tell if their changes are likely to be risky or controversial)

> You are not a developer of any alternative clients, and this is a webpage for Bitcoin clients. I have made a change to remove a source of disputes, and make the process more fair and equal. Your suggestion to remove the clients page is your bias towards thinking that there should be only one Bitcoin client that everyone uses (the one which you contribute towards).

I'm strongly supportive diversity in the Bitcoin network, and some alt
client developers can speak to the positive prodding I've given them
towards becoming more complete software. If I've said anything that
suggests otherwise I'd love to be pointed to it in order to clarify my
position.

Unfortunately none of the primary alternatives are yet complete, the
network would be non-function if it consisted entirely of multibit or
electrum nodes (and as you've noted armory uses a local reference
client as its 'server').  The distinction between multiple kinds of
clients in terms of security and network health are subtle and can be
difficult to explain even to technical users and so until something
changes there the reference client needs to be the option we lead
with. People should us it unless their use-case doesn't match. When it
does they'll know it and they'll be looking. We don't need to make one
of those recommendations a primary option.

I like the proposals of moving this stuff to the Wiki as the wiki
already contains tons of questionable (and sometimes contradictory)
advice and so there is less expectation that placement there implies
any vetting.