Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of fastmail.co.uk
	designates 66.111.4.26 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=66.111.4.26; envelope-from=jim618@fastmail.co.uk;
	helo=out2-smtp.messagingengine.com; 
Message-Id: <1372362018.21506.140661249289441.6E1B5441@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Jim <jim618@fastmail.co.uk>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
In-Reply-To: <1372360716.14869.140661249272837.1376DACB@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1372353053.10405.140661249237317.77984E1F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<CAJHLa0Ncac9Xt-AQBnpghqqpfR-j6Xtd9qVQoUe2dPp0kJvz1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<201306271804.51009.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAS2fgRE+gj0NrDMk-WamSU+mADJM1EqgR-6Sa2MNCbwq-0Gdw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1372360716.14869.140661249272837.1376DACB@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:40:18 +0100
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: MultiBit as default desktop
 client on bitcoin.org
Precedence: list

RE: 141.101.113.245

http://whois.domaintools.com/141.101.113.245
gives it as CloudFlare - I suspect it is protecting
Mt Gox when we make our get for currency ticker info.


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013, at 08:18 PM, Jim wrote:
> A few replies, in order of point raised:
> 
> Jeff:
> Arguments against multibit default:
> * Less testing, field experience on desktop
> 
> Yes this is true - downloads of multibit have typically been around
> 1/7th to 1/5th of bitcoin-QT downloads. It helps of course that
> the bitcoinj networking/ object model is also used by Andreas 
> as you note.
> 
> 
> Greg:
> I think Mike has squashed the deadlocking problems with reentrant 
> locks (primarily in the Wallet). I haven't seen one in at least a month.
> 
> We discussed proxy support on the bitcoinj mailing list a while ago 
> and at the time the stumbling block was the Java library used for 
> the networking (Netty) did not support it. Mike or Miron would 
> know better than I if this is still the case.
> 
> Change address behaviour will improve significantly when HD
> wallet support goes into multibit/ bitcoinj (I am hoping to get my
> bit done over the summer). Matija Mazi has been working on a 
> Java impl of HD wallets so it is coming down the pipe but
> there is a lot to do yet.
> 
> Connections out from MultiBit are:
> + 4 bitcoind nodes on port 8333
> + multibit.org (188.138.113.201) for help, current version info
>    (and probably more in future)
> + the currency ticker will make HTTP gets to the source of
>    whichever exchange(s) you have set up e.g MtGox, CampBX.
>    This calls should disappear if you switch the currency conversion
>    and ticker off.
> 
> I think that is all the connections out I make.
> 
> Mainly due to the exchanges abruptly changing their APIs and
> breaking things we are planning to put in intermediate 
> "Exchange Data Provider" servers. Tim Molter is working on this
> in his XChange project. That will enable us to patch the server
> when things change and the multibits in the field won't be
> affected. There will probably be a couple of these initially
> for redundancy.
> 
> Alex: Yes I think most users migrate to blockchain.info or,
> more recently coinbase.com. They are both good wallets
> but I'd like to keep Bitcoin as P2P as possible.
> 
> Luke-Jr
> I think you are right here on the number of full nodes versus
> SPV nodes.
> I don't think we even know yet what are the working ratios of
> full nodes to SPV nodes. I haven't seen anybody do any 
> analysis on this.
> 
> I doubt multibit will ever participate in the Bitcoin network 
> other than as an SPV client. All the optimisation is to reduce
> data traffic - it is effectively a mobile wallet that happens to
> live on a desktop. It is not really intended to be more than
> "a wallet for regular people to store and spend their bitcoin".
> 
> In English the nomenclature for direction of the transactions
> is: "Sent to" and "Received with". To be honest I 
> haven't transliterated the localisation files to check other
> language packs but the localisers are pretty good in my
> experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013, at 07:41 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:30:21 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > >> * Very real possibility of an overall net reduction of full nodes on P2P
> > >> network
> > > Even a reduction of *nodes at all*, as I've never seen a listening bitcoinj or
> > > MultiBit node. :/
> > > Jim, will MultiBit be adding p2p listening support?
> > 
> > Without validation listening isn't currently very useful. :( Maybe it
> > could be somewhat more with some protocol additions.
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
> > 
> > Build for Windows Store.
> > 
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> 
> 
> -- 
> https://multibit.org    Money, reinvented
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
> 
> Build for Windows Store.
> 
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


-- 
https://multibit.org    Money, reinvented