Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of lavabit.com
	designates 72.249.41.33 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=72.249.41.33; envelope-from=bgroff@lavabit.com;
	helo=karen.lavabit.com; 
Message-ID: <14784.137.56.163.46.1308279959.squirrel@lavabit.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimZ5j7=1G89uRO9f7fHPdmDMpLMqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimZ5j7=1G89uRO9f7fHPdmDMpLMqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:05:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: bgroff@lavabit.com
To: "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Development priorities
Precedence: list

> 1) Scaling-up issues, like disconnections when downloading the block
> chain.
>
> 2) Wallet security.
>
> 3) Unit testing framework.  There was a PULL that had the start of
> boost unit tests; I think that is a critical need, along with a good
> suite of test cases.

I agree that these are critical and I'd love to help, especially on #2 an=
d
#3.  #3 will, by necessity, include a thorough review of the code, which
may uncover latent issues.

I think that for #2 it would also be good to publish a "Best security
practices" document to try and educate the user base.

> Those are the big issues for me.  Anything that slows those down I'm
> going to ignore (example: love the idea of escrow transactions, but I
> do NOT want to add nifty new features when we're having trouble
> keeping the features we're using now working properly).

That is understandable.  However, something to think about later is that
multi-signature coins can help with #2, even with compromised end-user
machines.

--
Bobby Groff