summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/2f/ba991b6f509e0cd9d24e1315411d7efe4a0ba8
blob: 847acb3f6d55a8dc5abeb555a9884fe00212896b (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1SoEI1-0004Wj-JJ
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:46:13 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-yx0-f175.google.com; 
Received: from mail-yx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1SoEHw-0007iv-Ch
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:46:13 +0000
Received: by yenl13 with SMTP id l13so10231798yen.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 09 Jul 2012 06:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.74.3 with SMTP id p3mr65654503pav.49.1341841562484; Mon, 09
	Jul 2012 06:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.59.6 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 06:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGQP0AGG9Wrx0CDQQVwpCovovDV072Cr9rrLhUHuBgb4kNr+XA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1341825681.35206.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<20120709121949.7hxwomyxskc004w8@webmail.henricson.se>
	<1341830670.81383.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<jtedbo$271$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<CAGQP0AGG9Wrx0CDQQVwpCovovDV072Cr9rrLhUHuBgb4kNr+XA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:46:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTmBJGJuKa=Tcy+SdoTs5xKFtLBAA0P-_zDY6tNSj4CHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
	0.7 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1SoEHw-0007iv-Ch
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Wallet for Android
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:46:13 -0000

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <timon.elviejo@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> Didn't even know that they were proprietary software bitcoin clients.
> Should people trust them? Should the web promote them?
> After all, you can't know what they do. What if one of them contains a
> back door or something?
> I would say it's better not risk to apologize later.

I agree too.  Not that being open is _any_ guarantee, ideally we'd
want standards
of review and testing, but thats a bit much to ask for right now.