Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.47; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-wg0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1372353053.10405.140661249237317.77984E1F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1372353053.10405.140661249237317.77984E1F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:30:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0Ncac9Xt-AQBnpghqqpfR-j6Xtd9qVQoUe2dPp0kJvz1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
To: Jim <jim618@fastmail.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: MultiBit as default desktop
 client on bitcoin.org
Precedence: list

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Jim <jim618@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello Everybody,
>
> Over the last few months we have been steadily adding
> functionality to MultiBit including:
> + encrypted wallets
> + sign and verify message
> + stability improvements and bug fixes.
>
> As a result of these efforts I think MultiBit is now
> suitable for the entry level Bitcoin user. I propose
> that we put MultiBit as the default desktop client
> on the bitcoin.org "Choose your wallet" page.
>
> I think a typical new user comes to bitcoin.org from a
> google search or a Bitcoin news article. We want them to
> peruse the bitcoin.org site and try out a wallet. They
> should be able to get MultiBit up and running in a tea break.
> Then perhaps they get a colleague to send them some bitcoin
> from an Android phone by zapping a QR code.

This is definitely a great discussion to have.  Here are some initial,
unprioritized thoughts.  As an engineer, there is never a clear
answer, but a balance of costs and benefits.

Arguments in favor of moving away from Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind for wallet services:
* Bitcoin-Qt is admittedly a very simple wallet.  I see it's core
strengths more as a "P2P router" for the public blockchain data.
* Wallet feature innovation moves more slowly than
Armory/bitcoinj/blockchain.info.
* Requires the full blockchain, which is resource-intensive versus SPV.

Arguments in favor of retaining Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind default:
* More field experience, code review and testing on desktop than others
* Very real possibility of an overall net reduction of full nodes on P2P network

Arguments in favor of multibit default:
* Good user interface, perhaps more friendly for entry level users as
you describe
* Based on bitcoinj, which has field experience and a very large
installed base thanks to Bitcoin Wallet/Schildbach

Arguments against multibit default:
* Less testing, field experience on desktop

I'm sure others can come up with a few more.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/