Hey,
I just saw this added to the clients page. One of the conditions we set for
that page was that all the clients must have the entire sourcecode available
for review, and users should be able to run it from the sourcecode. Is the
sourcecode for this client available for review? I couldn't
Sources are available here:
http://code.google.com/p/bitcoin-wallet/
Mats
Quoting Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com:
Hey,
I just saw this added to the clients page. One of the conditions we
set for that page was that all the clients must have the entire
sourcecode available for review,
OK thanks. I just went and made those sections then saw your posts.
Anyway we have a section for proprietary clients now. Please tell me if
anything looks disagreeable, http://bitcoin.org/clients.html
One thing I'm going to do is randomise the positioning order within sections
upon refresh.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Jorge Timón timon.elvi...@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?
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I've reverted these additions to the page, nothing personal but—
Er, to be clear, I left the android software in because the source is
available (And I'm told its had some review).
I removed the proprietary software
Any chance the blockchain.info iphone app could be included on the clients
page? The source is available under an lGPL license:
https://github.com/blockchain/My-Wallet-iPhone. More
info:https://blockchain.info/wallet/iphone-app
Also the javascript web front end can be reviewed using a
JS randomisation is bad. People shouldn't need JS to view a webpage.
Only you have a problem with this page. I don't see why Bitcoin-Qt needs to be
first either when it dominates the front page. It is perfectly fine as it is.
You are not a developer of any alternative clients, and this is a
You are not a developer of any alternative clients
I am and I'm going to have to agree with Greg. Information about clients
is bound to be transient and controversial.
My relatively naive suggestion would be to move it to the Wiki. If it
can handle the controversies involved with the Trade
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Is the sourcecode for this client available for review? I couldn't find it.
yes:
http://code.google.com/p/bitcoin-wallet/
and it is built upon
http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/
harald
FWIW, all this argumenting is why my original suggestion for a Clients list
focussed on objective information in alphabetical order.
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
JS randomisation is bad. People shouldn't need JS to view a webpage.
JS randomization doesn't imply needing JS to view the page. It implies
needing JS to see it in random order. You could also combine it with
the server-side
I generally agree with Greg. I don't see anything he's said or done as
anti-alt-client.
As an alt-client developer, I'm happy to see my client on the main page,
but I'm also happy if that clients page is simply an acknowledgement that
there's more to the Bitcoin world than just the Bitcoin-Qt
I don't think that's a good idea as it can easily confuse or annoy users
when things move around. The ordering should be preserved as much as
possible so users can remember where they found a client they liked
(e.g. 2nd row, 1st column and screenshot with light and blue colors).
Making them search
This page really does matter to alternative clients. If you measure the click
through statistics, then they are a significant portion of the
traffic. By removing this page, you are directly stunting Bitcoin's
growth.
The only thing that's changed between now and this morning is:
- Addition
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
If you had authored this as a pull request rather than making the
change unilaterally I would have recommended leaving it so the
reference client was always first. I also would have suggested that it
use JS
I strongly agree, but this is *why* I suggested moving it to the wiki. I
recently had to choose an XMPP client and I looked on xmpp.org - after a
frustrating experience with their listing [1]
Probably because their listing is even more useless than any of the
proposals that were presented
By that time in the future, when there are many clients, there should just be a
flat list or no list at all.
- Original Message -
From: Nils Schneider n...@nilsschneider.net
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 6:33 PM
Subject: Re:
I think by users you mean, geeks who understand wiki syntax.
The point is to expand the circle of contributors. I'm pretty sure there
are more people who can edit a wiki than people who know HTML and how to
create a git pull request. :)
Inability to agree on columns isn't why the page looks
18 matches
Mail list logo
