It particulary worries me that a lot of sites hand over their SSL
private keys to Cloudflare, and they are located in prism land.
> Cloudflare is rapidly becoming a bitcoin community SPOF.
--
See everything from the brow
That's good to know. Still, at the moment we'd need to dramatically
increase the download size and increase Bitcoin usage by 10x to hit our
limits. It'd be a good problem to have.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Johnathan Corgan
wrote:
> On 07/09/2013 08:32 AM, Nick Simpson wrote:
>
> > What abo
On 07/09/2013 08:32 AM, Nick Simpson wrote:
> What about something like Cloudflare? Transparent to most and it'd help
> with your bandwidth issues.
By way of endorsement, at the GNU Radio Project we switched to
CloudFlare's free service tier a few months ago. We host on AWS EC2 our
own web serve
Not any more than sourceforge or github.. None of these solutions are
replacements, but rather only supplements to self hosted files.
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Nick Simpson
>wrote:
>> What about something like Cloudflare? Transparent to most and it'd
>help with
>> you
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Nick Simpson wrote:
> What about something like Cloudflare? Transparent to most and it'd help with
> your bandwidth issues.
Cloudflare is rapidly becoming a bitcoin community SPOF.
--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.
What about something like Cloudflare? Transparent to most and it'd help with
your bandwidth issues.
Mike Hearn wrote:
>That's true - we could serve new users off our own servers and auto
>updates
>off SF.net mirrors, potentially.
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Daniel F wrote:
>
>> on 07/
That's true - we could serve new users off our own servers and auto updates
off SF.net mirrors, potentially.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Daniel F wrote:
> on 07/09/2013 10:28 AM Mike Hearn said the following:
> > SourceForge has a horrible UI and blocks some countries. It also exposes
> > u
on 07/09/2013 10:28 AM Mike Hearn said the following:
> SourceForge has a horrible UI and blocks some countries. It also exposes
> us to a large and potentially hackable mirror network. Whilst we're not
> bandwidth constrained on our own servers, let's try and keep using them.
the point was just t
For those interested in these things the multibit.org server
is a dedicated server hosted by the German company
http://www.server4you.net.
It is physically located in the delightful city of Strasbourg,
just on the French side of the French German border.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013, at 03:28 PM, Mike
SourceForge has a horrible UI and blocks some countries. It also exposes us
to a large and potentially hackable mirror network. Whilst we're not
bandwidth constrained on our own servers, let's try and keep using them.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Daniel F wrote:
> on 07/09/2013 06:56 AM Jim said the following:
>> + it will bump up the MultiBit download from about 11MB to 30-40MB
>> (I think). This drops the maximum copies of MultiBit the multibit.org
>> server can deliver per day from around 90,000 to 30,00
on 07/09/2013 06:56 AM Jim said the following:
> + it will bump up the MultiBit download from about 11MB to 30-40MB
> (I think). This drops the maximum copies of MultiBit the multibit.org
> server can deliver per day from around 90,000 to 30,000ish.
> The multibit.org server maxes out at 1 TB of
Omaha - which is the automatic update framework that Google Chrome uses -
is open sourced:
https://code.google.com/p/omaha/
It might be a bit heavyweight for just one package though.
Will
On 9 July 2013 13:04, Mike Hearn wrote:
> For the auto update, is there an existing auto update framework
By the way, the Java Web Start system has improved a lot in recent versions
as well. I just tried running http://jfxtras.org/ and this was the
experience:
- It told me my Java was insecure and that I should download the latest
version (hah). It had three buttons, one saying "Update", one say
Currently there are about 2,500 downloads a day for MultiBit.
There are download stats here:
https://multibit.org/awstats/awstats.pl?config=multibit.org
With a mirror from Mike and perhaps another instance at
multibit.org that would get us to 100K per day so probably
nothing to worry about.
I thi
How many downloads/day do we see currently? I think you said it's on the
order of a few thousand, so nowhere near 30k I'd guess. Anyway I can mirror
it if we need to.
The JavaFX packager is supposed to delete parts of the JVM that aren't
used. Is the 30-40mb figure based on using that tool or some
Yes I would like to bundle a JVM as it would simplify the user
experience.
There are a few downsides though:
+ all the build packaging will need redoing and retesting.
+ it will bump up the MultiBit download from about 11MB to 30-40MB
(I think). This drops the maximum copies of MultiBit the multi
Modern Java versions let you bundle the app with a stripped down JVM. I
don't know if Jim does that, but I think it's an obvious step towards
making MultiBit friendlier and easier to use.
BTW I believe most secure browsers (Chrome, Firefox) have banned the applet
plugin or severely restrained it a
Java (Applet) security is indeed abysmal but lets compare apples to apples.
With an applet some random guy with a website makes up some Java code and
your browser automatically executes it.
With Multibit you're only executing highly trusted code (so trusted that it
handles your money).
There has al
But... Multibit is Java. Java's security problems has made it an instant
uninstall item on windows PCs for about a year now. Java exploits are a
dime a dozen.
Yes, you can reduce some of the problems by manually disabling the browser
plugin, but how many users will do that?
Recommending a fast SP
I've beefed up the supporting documentation for the website to make it more
accessible for developers who wish to contribute. It's a Java application
serving HTML.
It can be found here: https://github.com/jim618/multibit-website
On 30 June 2013 16:19, Jim wrote:
> Yeah "email jim' was never go
Yeah "email jim' was never going to work so I have
bumped up MultiBit support (a bit) by:
+ having a dedicated Support page on the website
https://multibit.org/support.html
It has fixes and support notes for the most common gotchas.
+ the in-app help also now has a 'Support' section with
Sounds like we have consensus, Saivann, shall we do it?
I'm also going to ask Theymos again to relax the newbie restrictions
for the alt client forums. It's probably too hard to get support at
the moment and "email jim" doesn't scale at all.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:09:16AM +, John Dillon wrote:
> true transaction origins. Which reminds me, again, we need node-to-node
> connections to be encrypted to at least protect against network-wide
> passive sniffiing.
Agreed.
Speaking of, I may have missed it but as far as I can tell Bit
There are already descriptions as you describe on:
http://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet.
If you hover over any of the wallet icons you get a description and a
link.
People being people, we find in practice that the very first wallet link
on the page is what the majority of new users click.
There are good, valid arguments in support of promoting both the reference
client, Bitcoin-QT, and for offering a lighter-weight alternative. Why not
outline these arguments on bitcoin.org and provide links to each; or even
links to a variety of alternative wallet solutions alongside descriptions
o
I vote "yes" to have MultiBit replace Bitcoin-Qt as the recommended
desktop wallet app. I think most users will be happier with it.
If I'm wrong, it is easy to change back.
--
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Luke-Jr 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
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I suspect what you saw is mining nodes restarting and clearing their
> mempools out rather than an explicit policy of replace by fee.
Possibly, but it is a rather short window of opportunity and
I suspect what you saw is mining nodes restarting and clearing their
mempools out rather than an explicit policy of replace by fee.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:09 PM, John Dillon
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> I see some of the the other things that were concerning for me at the
>> time are still uncorrected though, e.g. no proxy support (so users
>> can't follow our recommended best practices of using
> Arguments in favor of retaining Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind default:
> * More field experience, code review and testing on desktop than others
I'm hoping that if we start promoting alternative wallets their dev
communities will get larger. Most bitcoinj code is peer reviewed, but
not to the same extent
> There were a number of issues with it at the time, in
> particular the frequent deadlocks— though Mike was saying that those
> should be fixed.
Yes. There were a number of lock cycles that didn't cause issues so
much when traffic was lower and as Bitcoin got more popular it became
a critical pro
On 06/27/2013 01:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jim wrote:
>> Let me know if you think this is a good idea (or not!)
>> and if you have any questions.
>
> Being able to promote a fast SPV desktop wallet would be great!
>
> I went through an cycle of testing o
Perhaps there should be two different sections on the web page.
Nerds / Non-Nerds
With different recommendations for which clients to use.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Alex Kravets wrote:
> > What all the nerdy devs (and I am one so
Many people that I have introduced Bitcoin to have balked at the massive
blockchain download. When I showed them MultiBit (and Bitcoin Wallet) they
breathed a sigh of relief and got on with it.
A currency lives or dies by network effects. If we can provide the average
low-tech user with a great cl
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Alex Kravets wrote:
> What all the nerdy devs (and I am one so I know) seem unable to comprehend,
> is that regular people out there don't wanna learn all this new stuff and
> new terminology they simply have no attention span for it.
Bitcoin Wallet for Android is
Hi Jim,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Jim wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Guys, being a late comer/outsider (I got into bitcoin in early 2012)
I missed Greg's point on confirmations.
It is definitely a challenge to explain/ visualize both:
+ has the transaction propagated the network ?
and
+ it it confirmed/ buried in a block ?
when those words probably don't mean much to
the intended audience.
The transaction status icons I *think* do
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 multi
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
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Luke-Jr 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. :/
>
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?
> I'
Hi guys,
This would be a big step forward. Anecdotally I can report that <5% of *
non-nerds* who don't abandon Bitcoin after waiting for the initial
blockchain download and *ongoing* sync on every restart, end up using
blockchain.info simply because it just works and works on their iPads &
iPhone
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jim wrote:
> Let me know if you think this is a good idea (or not!)
> and if you have any questions.
Being able to promote a fast SPV desktop wallet would be great!
I went through an cycle of testing on multibit after I saw some
complaints when it went up on the
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Jim 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 Multi
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 propo
47 matches
Mail list logo
