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 randomization if you care about non-js being non random, though I don't think it matters. As others have pointed out I don't generally think the randomization is good in principle, but if its done it should at least achieve its goals. > 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. I'll let other people speak for themselves, but I did consult others before reverting your last batch of changes. More generally, we have pull requests in order to get some peer review of changes. Everyone should use them except for changes which are urgent or trivially safe. (Presumably everyone with access knows how to tell if their changes are likely to be risky or controversial) > You are not a developer of any alternative clients, and this is a webpage for > Bitcoin clients. I have made a change to remove a source of disputes, and > make the process more fair and equal. Your suggestion to remove the clients > page is your bias towards thinking that there should be only one Bitcoin > client that everyone uses (the one which you contribute towards). I'm strongly supportive diversity in the Bitcoin network, and some alt client developers can speak to the positive prodding I've given them towards becoming more complete software. If I've said anything that suggests otherwise I'd love to be pointed to it in order to clarify my position. Unfortunately none of the primary alternatives are yet complete, the network would be non-function if it consisted entirely of multibit or electrum nodes (and as you've noted armory uses a local reference client as its 'server'). The distinction between multiple kinds of clients in terms of security and network health are subtle and can be difficult to explain even to technical users and so until something changes there the reference client needs to be the option we lead with. People should us it unless their use-case doesn't match. When it does they'll know it and they'll be looking. We don't need to make one of those recommendations a primary option. I like the proposals of moving this stuff to the Wiki as the wiki already contains tons of questionable (and sometimes contradictory) advice and so there is less expectation that placement there implies any vetting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
