Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SoUcP-0002Ii-UR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:12:21 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.47; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-yw0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-yw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SoUcO-0004tk-Pi for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:12:21 +0000 Received: by yhjj56 with SMTP id j56so12594284yhj.34 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:12:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.78.105 with SMTP id f69mr49767817yhe.15.1341904335304; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.165.6 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:12:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1341849295.94710.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1341850157.18601.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1341857882.56956.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4FFB5A7E.7020604@justmoon.de> <4FFB9537.8040909@justmoon.de> <4FFB9707.9020307@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:12:15 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fae313a775504c47473c4 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (laanwj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1SoUcO-0004tk-Pi Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Random order for clients page X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:12:22 -0000 --20cf300fae313a775504c47473c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just my two cents -- I'm against removing the overview page or moving it to the wiki. I think other open source clients deserve a mention on the bitcoin.org page. Many new people are looking for a good Android client, for example. Rather than randomly searching on Google or the app store, it's much safer to follow the link from bitcoin.org. Others are looking for a light clients because they think the Satoshi one is too heavy. Again, rather than following random links on a search engine or wiki (not all users have the common sense required for this) it may be better if they follow links "audited" (or at least discussed) by this community. I agree with Jim here. The reference client is already first in that it can be downloaded directly from the main page of bitcoin.org. That should stay that way for the considerable future, as it's the most proven. The position in the alt clients list is less important. That said, I'm not a big fan of randomized order because it's confusing. Come back to the page and it's different. Some other neutral ordering is probably possible. Wladimir On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote= : > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Alan Reiner wrote: > > What a feature matrix is good at though is it allows you to very quickl= y > > find the specific feature or general criteria you're looking for withou= t > > reading through all of the text. So it might be a useful addition maybe > > not on Bitcoin.org, but certainly on the wiki. > > I'm generally not a fan of feature matrixes, they encourage "checkbox > decision making"=E2=80=94 which is seldom very good for the decider, thou= gh > it's much loved by the marketing department that puts together the > matrix. But just becase something is loved by marketing departments > for its ability to set the agenda in variously biased ways doesn't > mean its a great thing to emulate. > > Take the matrix Luke linked to for example[1]. Now imagine that we > tunnel MyBitcoin from a year ago and drop it into that table. It > would have every light green, except 'encryption' (which wouldn't have > been green for bitcoin-qt then either). It would basically be the > dominant option by the matrix comparison, and this is without any > lobbying to get MyBitcoin specific features (like their shopping chart > interface) added, not to mention the "_vanishes with everyone's > money_" feature. > > I don't think I'm being unreasonable to say that if you could drop in > something that retrospectively cost people a lot into your decision > matrix and it comes out on top you're doing something wrong. > > In tables like this significant differences like "a remote hacker can > rob you" get reduced to equal comparison with "chrome spoiler", and > it further biases development motivations towards features that make > nice bullets (even if they're seldom used) vs important infrastructure > which may invisibly improve usage every day or keeps the network > secure and worth having. "Of course I want the fastest startup! Why > would I choose anything else?" "What do you mean all my bitcoin is > gone because the four remaining full nodes were taken over and reorged > it all?" > > I wouldn't expect any really important features which don't have > complicated compromises attached to them to be omitted from all > clients for all that long. > > Basically matrixes make bad decision making fast, and by making it > fast it's more attractive than careful decision making that always > takes time. The text is nice because it contextualizes the complete > feature set and helps you understand why different clients exist, what > problems they attempt to solve, and what compromises they make. ... > without making the unrealistic demand of the user they they know how > to fairly weigh the value of technical and sometimes subtle issues. > > > [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Clients > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --20cf300fae313a775504c47473c4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Just my two cents -- I'm against removing the overview p= age or moving it to the wiki. I think other open source clients deserve a m= ention on the bitcoin.org page.

Many new people are looking for a good Android client, for examp= le. Rather than randomly searching on Google or the app store, it's muc= h safer to follow the link from bitcoin.org<= /a>. Others are looking for a light clients because they think the Satoshi = one is too heavy.=C2=A0

Again, rather than following random links on a search e= ngine or wiki=C2=A0(not all users have the common sense required for this)= =C2=A0it may be better if they follow links "audited" (or at leas= t discussed) by this community. I agree with Jim here.

The reference client is already first in that it can be= downloaded directly from the main page of b= itcoin.org. That should stay that way for the considerable future, as i= t's the most proven. =C2=A0The position in the alt clients list is less= important.=C2=A0That said, I'm not a big fan of randomized order becau= se it's confusing. Come back to the page and it's different. Some o= ther neutral ordering is probably possible.=C2=A0

Wladimir

On= Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:= 44 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gma= il.com> wrote:
> What a feature matrix is good at though is it allows you to very quick= ly
> find the specific feature or general criteria you're looking for w= ithout
> reading through all of the text. So it might be a useful addition mayb= e
> not on Bitcoin.org, but certainly on the wiki.

I'm generally not a fan of feature matrixes, they encourage "= ;checkbox
decision making"=E2=80=94 which is seldom very good for the decider, t= hough
it's much loved by the marketing department that puts together the
matrix. =C2=A0But just becase something is loved by marketing departments for its ability to set the agenda in variously biased ways doesn't
mean its a great thing to emulate.

Take the matrix Luke linked to for example[1]. =C2=A0Now imagine that we tunnel MyBitcoin from a year ago and drop it into that table. =C2=A0It
would have every light green, except 'encryption' (which wouldn'= ;t have
been green for bitcoin-qt then either). It would basically be the
dominant option by the matrix comparison, and this is without any
lobbying to get MyBitcoin specific features (like their shopping chart
interface) added, not to mention the "_vanishes with everyone's money_" feature.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable to say that if you could drop = in
something that retrospectively cost people a lot into your decision
matrix and it comes out on top you're doing something wrong.

In tables like this significant differences like "a remote hacker can<= br> rob you" get reduced to equal comparison with "chrome spoiler&quo= t;, =C2=A0and
it further biases development motivations towards features that make
nice bullets (even if they're seldom used) vs important infrastructure<= br> which may invisibly improve usage every day or keeps the network
secure and worth having. =C2=A0"Of course I want the fastest startup! = Why
would I choose anything else?" "What do you mean all my bitcoin i= s
gone because the four remaining full nodes were taken over and reorged
it all?"

I wouldn't expect any really important features which don't have complicated compromises attached to them to be omitted from all
clients for all that long.

Basically matrixes make bad decision making fast, and by making it
fast it's more attractive than careful decision making that always
takes time. =C2=A0The text is nice because it contextualizes the complete feature set and helps you understand why different clients exist, what
problems they attempt to solve, and what compromises they make. ...
without making the unrealistic demand of the user they they know how
to fairly weigh the value of technical and sometimes subtle issues.


[1] https:= //en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Clients

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122= 263/
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--20cf300fae313a775504c47473c4--