References: <1341849295.94710.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CAAS2fgRd0gqrxXs4Le6nydYBaG7EO=T7FrtX6QZpg3aJtAxSvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1341850157.18601.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CAAS2fgQRo4swDTQjPE0PmnpZ9uS+TDNQdOR6q4K70xsNJY9RfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1341857882.56956.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQRo4swDTQjPE0PmnpZ9uS+TDNQdOR6q4K70xsNJY9RfQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Random order for clients page
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>

This page really does matter to alternative clients. If you measure the cli=
ck through statistics, then they are a significant portion of the =0Atraffi=
c. By removing this page, you are directly stunting Bitcoin's =0Agrowth.=0A=
=0AThe only thing that's changed between now and this morning is: =0A=0A- A=
ddition of Bitcoin Wallet for Android=0A- Randomisation of entries=0A=0AI a=
ctually got permission from everyone involved before making the page.If you=
 want to remove the page, then we should see a vote by:=0A=0A- laanwj=0A- g=
avin=0A- sipa=0A- jgarzik=0A- BlueMatt=0A- Diapolo=0A- luke-jr=0A- you=0A- =
jim from multibit=0A- gary rowe=0A- ThomasV=0A- me=0A- etotheipi=0A- Andrea=
s Schildbach=0A- justmoon=0A- Mike Hearn=0AYou're proposing to remove the p=
age. You know, and I know and I know that you know that nobody visits the W=
iki. 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).=0A=0A=0AHave you tri=
ed the new clients? I've tried all 4, and they are all well written.=0A=0AT=
ry the new version of Electrum, https://gitorious.org/electrum/electrum - i=
t's more featureful and secure than Bitcoin-Qt what with deterministic wall=
ets, brain-wallets, prioritising addresses, frozen addresses, offline trans=
actions - none of which Bitcoin-Qt has.=0A=0AMultiBit is also very good wit=
h 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.=0A=0A=0ABitcoin Wallet for Android has one of the best bitc=
oin UIs I've seen and is extremely well thought out in how the user navigat=
es through the software.=0A=0AThe Bitcoin network could function perfectly =
fine with Electrum nodes and =0Aminers. You would still have miners and we =
wouldn't have the problem now with huge blocks because miners would be econ=
omically incentivised to =0Akeep blocks small. But that's another discussio=
n.=0A=0ATechnically speaking, the randomisation is fine now. It achieves it=
s intended effect, as the page is regenerated daily.=0A=0AThis does not nee=
d to be a source of arguing. I see no problem with having this page be a ne=
utral overview of the main clients (as we all agreed together in the beginn=
ing):=0A- Source must be public, and users must be able to run from source.=
=0A- Description should be non-spammy and neutral sounding. Cover the negat=
ive aspects.=0ARandomisation of the order simply makes that fairer. Alphabe=
tical is not a good option (as others have suggested) because it can be gam=
ed.=0A=0AThere 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, s=
ipa, jgarzik, and the long-term stated goal of bitcoin.org as a neutral res=
ource for the community.=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message -----=0AFrom: Gr=
egory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>=0ATo: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>=0AC=
c: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" <bitcoin-development@lists.s=
ourceforge.net>=0ASent: Monday, July 9, 2012 6:46 PM=0ASubject: Re: [Bitcoi=
n-development] Random order for clients page=0A=0AOn Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12=
:09 PM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com> wrote:=0A> JS randomisation is bad. =
People shouldn't need JS to view a webpage.=0A=0AJS randomization doesn't i=
mply needing JS to view the page. It implies=0Aneeding JS to see it in rand=
om order.=A0 You could also combine it with=0Athe server-side randomization=
 if you care about non-js being non=0Arandom, though I don't think it matte=
rs.=0A=0AAs others have pointed out I don't generally think the randomizati=
on=0Ais good in principle, but if its done it should at least achieve its=
=0Agoals.=0A=0A> Only you have a problem with this page. I don't see why Bi=
tcoin-Qt needs to be first either when it dominates the front page. It is p=
erfectly fine as it is.=0A=0AI'll let other people speak for themselves, bu=
t I did consult others=0Abefore reverting your last batch of changes.=0A=0A=
More generally, we have pull requests in order to get some peer review=0Aof=
 changes.=A0 Everyone should use them except for changes which are=0Aurgent=
 or trivially safe.=A0 (Presumably everyone with access knows how=0Ato tell=
 if their changes are likely to be risky or controversial)=0A=0A> You are n=
ot a developer of any alternative clients, and this is a webpage for Bitcoi=
n clients. I have made a change to remove a source of disputes, and make th=
e process more fair and equal. Your suggestion to remove the clients page i=
s your bias towards thinking that there should be only one Bitcoin client t=
hat everyone uses (the one which you contribute towards).=0A=0AI'm strongly=
 supportive diversity in the Bitcoin network, and some alt=0Aclient develop=
ers can speak to the positive prodding I've given them=0Atowards becoming m=
ore complete software. If I've said anything that=0Asuggests otherwise I'd =
love to be pointed to it in order to clarify my=0Aposition.=0A=0AUnfortunat=
ely none of the primary alternatives are yet complete, the=0Anetwork would =
be non-function if it consisted entirely of multibit or=0Aelectrum nodes (a=
nd as you've noted armory uses a local reference=0Aclient as its 'server').=
=A0 The distinction between multiple kinds of=0Aclients in terms of securit=
y and network health are subtle and can be=0Adifficult to explain even to t=
echnical users and so until something=0Achanges there the reference client =
needs to be the option we lead=0Awith. People should us it unless their use=
-case doesn't match. When it=0Adoes they'll know it and they'll be looking.=
 We don't need to make one=0Aof those recommendations a primary option.=0A=
=0AI like the proposals of moving this stuff to the Wiki as the wiki=0Aalre=
ady contains tons of questionable (and sometimes contradictory)=0Aadvice an=
d so there is less expectation that placement there implies=0Aany vetting.=
=0A