summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorMike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>2013-06-28 11:05:51 +0200
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2013-06-28 09:05:58 +0000
commitebe0e0e3692055869bb7516221e5c266a0b64742 (patch)
treed42e27957749f51805642af7dddec97423798ff1
parent53ee6c4e10791334a48218da7a0ad34b750d6afd (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-ebe0e0e3692055869bb7516221e5c266a0b64742.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-ebe0e0e3692055869bb7516221e5c266a0b64742.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: MultiBit as default desktop client on bitcoin.org
-rw-r--r--0e/6ec01eadbae7610a33d0242c1eff57928fa59e108
1 files changed, 108 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/0e/6ec01eadbae7610a33d0242c1eff57928fa59e b/0e/6ec01eadbae7610a33d0242c1eff57928fa59e
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ef27611fe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/0e/6ec01eadbae7610a33d0242c1eff57928fa59e
@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1UsUcw-0004qu-Rf
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:05:58 +0000
+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
+ designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender)
+ client-ip=209.85.219.49; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
+ helo=mail-oa0-f49.google.com;
+Received: from mail-oa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.219.49])
+ by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
+ (Exim 4.76) id 1UsUcv-0000Cs-51
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:05:58 +0000
+Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n9so2004770oag.22
+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
+ Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+X-Received: by 10.182.230.163 with SMTP id sz3mr5992251obc.81.1372410351700;
+ Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
+Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
+Received: by 10.76.23.36 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
+In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTka6Dw94V0-vHBHxG=zadu9EmhKmfVm7Y_dQUUgrTf6w@mail.gmail.com>
+References: <1372353053.10405.140661249237317.77984E1F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
+ <CAAS2fgTka6Dw94V0-vHBHxG=zadu9EmhKmfVm7Y_dQUUgrTf6w@mail.gmail.com>
+Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:05:51 +0200
+X-Google-Sender-Auth: q6XPK5Wgc2KA4ZrhhTUU7TkUPsM
+Message-ID: <CANEZrP2gv2qus1CKTTSFMYcNQDbrSctKmA03YE_eZFDTQsQhXw@mail.gmail.com>
+From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
+To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
+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
+ 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: 1UsUcv-0000Cs-51
+Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: MultiBit as default desktop
+ client on bitcoin.org
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
+X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:05:59 -0000
+
+> There were a number of issues with it at the time, in
+> particular the frequent deadlocks=E2=80=94 though Mike was saying that th=
+ose
+> should be fixed.
+
+Yes. There were a number of lock cycles that didn't cause issues so
+much when traffic was lower and as Bitcoin got more popular it became
+a critical problem. I redid a lot of the concurrency to fix that, and
+now all the core locks are cycle detecting so regressions should be
+detected fairly fast. I'm still making changes to the concurrency
+design but mostly to improve the API at this point, not fix bugs.
+
+There is one deadlock I'm still aware of, thanks to Netty. However
+it's very rare and was only reported by someone who kept a server
+running for many days in a row. We want to junk Netty soon anyway.
+It's a network library but it doesn't really add much value for our
+use case and it turned out to have some serious design issues
+internally.
+
+> I see some of the the other things that were concerning for me at the
+> time are still uncorrected though, e.g. no proxy support (so users
+> can't follow our recommended best practices of using it with Tor),
+
+Yeah. That's not the primary privacy issue with bitcoinj though. I'm
+much, much more concerned about leaks via the block chain than the
+network layer. Especially as Tor is basically a giant man in the
+middle, without any kind of authentication you can easily end up
+connected to a sybil network without any idea. I'd be surprised if Tor
+usage was very high amongst Bitcoin users.
+
+> that it reuses addresses (esp for change), that it doesn't clearly
+> distinguish confirmation level.
+
+It does actually, but the iconography is not very clear. I'm not
+convinced any users really care about the difference between two and
+three blocks these days. Maybe exchanges and other security-critical
+applications do, but I doubt desktop users do.
+
+It's not a library limitation anyway, it's a case of how best to
+present information to a user who is not familiar with how Bitcoin
+works. "Safe" and "Not safe" is still a rather misleading distinction
+given the general absence of double spends against mempool
+transactions, but it's still a lot more meaningful than "2 confirms"
+vs "3 confirms", something that would just make a new user ask what
+the heck a confirm is.
+
+