-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 12/5/2015 10:38 PM, Michael English wrote: > You have thoroughly criticized my documentation to help users > secure Electrum in Tails. I ask you again what would you change in > the current documentation where it warns about SPV. Would you > remove it entirely, replace it, or add something on to the end? > What specific wording would you use? > Didn't mean to criticize anything, but saw you are considering everything way more vulnerable and risky than it really is and only provided more information, which you can of course verify for yourself as well as anyone reading this list. The already existent warning about SPV which is now included in the documentation is fine. There is a link with a description about the weaknesses of SPV on an official page. I would include the fact that an user should ignore unconfirmed payments until they are confirmed, that's all, but I am not totally sure if this is really necessary given the fact that Electrum already displays the unconfirmed balances separately from the confirmed ones which makes it obvious. Example: Balance: 2.4221 BTC [+1.24864 unconfirmed] "In SPV mode, a good practice is to consider received payments as clear after they are confirmed." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWY3spAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsR+fkH/RSVhUNXAu+SC42S3S2cwVQv E+4894prRYfKd+s87Niyur0H3enda0TzwWZi9aUZbzlyo0T+DNPsZjx9TF7m3hGJ udzRWT5yZ6SPGxzDX2DgdeBy+MKrEClzZvZjxIo3XF4WWqGuxQdECYQyFUwXrv3a 9GKfX0oigCloM5Eo4havsTbNRIHFop2ZiZZ6pPQxbU0Vmxonz87jM8c9T55X2a4E dVvkUYuEA3/f1Xnmry0hrhQTccHOT2+9yMhNzC4UeKKU7qTDfxJ+fFxweiyr/550 T73PEMTPkJ+/y1i0Z3B7PUydgofauxD5zCi6ivesJdqZUVrTUxOaBH0SJqGs6IU= =EPIA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to [email protected].
