Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 12:37:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTVp7PhdJMfz-huyOsp=6Ca9wH6cVkedMgntXnK+ZpDXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	electrum.desktop@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum security model concerns
Precedence: list

I'm concerned about how the particular security model of electrum is
being described; or rather=E2=80=94 not being described.  The electrum webs=
ite
appears to have no security discussion beyond platitudes like "Secure:
Your private keys are not shared with the server. You do not have to
trust the server with your money.", "No scripts: Electrum does not
download any script at runtime. A compromised server cannot compromise
your client."

Claims like "You do not have to trust the server with your money" are
factually incorrect.

What I would expect is a proper discussion, like "Understanding the
bitcoinj security model":
http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/wiki/SecurityModel  (which I don't
agree with completely=E2=80=94 as it makes some claims which are known to b=
e
false=E2=80=94 wrt detecting double spends, but it does give a reasonable
overview),  and avoidance of broad claims which will result in
misunderstandings that result in users engaging in riskier behaviors
which they could avoid if they better understood the security of the
software they're running.