On 5 December 2012 19:43, Gary Rowe wrote:
> I would like to chime on on the user experience of the SPV client (in
> particular MultiBit).
>
> Without exception, everyone that I have introduced Bitcoin (which is a lot
> of people) have expected an "instant-on" experience. It has to clobber
> PayP
>> I was under the impression that "connectedness" was the real metric of
>> concern
I think the real thing we need full nodes for is "sockets" where by
socket I mean "resources needed to serve another node".
Last year we actually ran out of sockets and it took forever for new
nodes to connect be
I would like to chime on on the user experience of the SPV client (in
particular MultiBit).
Without exception, everyone that I have introduced Bitcoin (which is a lot
of people) have expected an "instant-on" experience. It has to clobber
PayPal and credit cards or people won't give it a second loo
Jim,
Most of those issues don't have to do with the SPV versus non-SPV problem.
First person doesn't understand what Bitcoin is supposed to do (he's
confusing mining and running a node). An information problem that could be
solved by explaining what is going on.
Another one seems to have a probl
Gavin's grandma needs to be able to use bitcoin. Here is a real world
sampling of the types of people wanting to use bitcoin but are having some
difficulty which I have collected from Facebook. Should we listen to the
end user? :-P
*"what is the intention of Bitcoin? Is it supposed to be - event
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Alan Reiner wrote:
> Our divergence is on two points (personal opinions):
>
> (1) I don't think there is any real risk to the centralization of the
> network by promoting a SPV (purely-consuming) node to brand-new users.
> In my opinion (but I'm not as familiar with
Our divergence is on two points (personal opinions):
(1) I don't think there is any real risk to the centralization of the
network by promoting a SPV (purely-consuming) node to brand-new users.
In my opinion (but I'm not as familiar with the networking as you), as
long as all full nodes are full-
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Alan Reiner wrote:
> Greg's point looks like it's veering towards "we don't want to grow
> the network unless we're going to get more full nodes out of it."
No…
There is no fundamental completion between taking what actions we can
to maximize the decentralization
This discussion sounds to be veering slightly off track. I think we should
be focusing on how we will ease the transition for new users to get on the
network and use it. Talking about the necessity and costs of running full
nodes in the future is important, but irrelevant here: unless we don't
w
Jim, perfect idea with some logo indicating wallet compatibility! This
should cover BIP32 + some mnemonic algorithm for easy transferring of
wallets across various clients.
Btw I asked ThomasV for making BIP from his mnemonic algorithm and he
agreed, so I believe some proposal will be here pretty
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> It sounds to me that you're insisting that you're asking people who
>> oppose degrading our recommendations to commit to a costly rushed
>> development timeline. I think this is a false choice.
>
> Hardly. I don't have any particular timeline in
> It sounds to me that you're insisting that you're asking people who
> oppose degrading our recommendations to commit to a costly rushed
> development timeline. I think this is a false choice.
Hardly. I don't have any particular timeline in mind. But I disagree
we have "forever". New ideas have a
>3. Re: Roadmap to getting users onto SPV clients (Mark Friedenbach)
>4. Re: Roadmap to getting users onto SPV clients (Will)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:03:11 -0500
> From: Alan Reiner
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-develop
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> Alan's
:(
> UTxO meta-chain proposal becomes vastly easier to do now that
> ultraprune is merged.
No, not really. Somewhat easier due to some structural changes, but it
still needs to invent and get consensus on a normative data structu
...or should we be directing people to a (vetted) list of cloud services -
I think this has a significantly lower entry cost than any client. I know
the mybitcoin debacle has clouded (pun intended) people's views of these
providers, but blockchain.info (for example) really does seem quite well
engi
Alan's UTxO meta-chain proposal becomes vastly easier to do now that
ultraprune is merged. That would allow the Satoshi client to know it's
wallet balance and operate with a >=SPV level of security during the
initial block download, and keep them on the path of becoming a full node.
If users can se
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> The alternative, I guess, is to make Bitcoin-Qt have an SPV mode. I'm
> not convinced this is the best use of time, but if somebody steps up
> to do it, that could also work.
I strongly believe that if community leads with client software which
My personal opinion is that the ideal first client has three features:
(1) Starts up and is usable within a couple minutes (even 10 min the first
time would be okay, to sync block headers)
(2) Supports Windows, Linux and OSX
(3) Uses deterministic wallets that can produce a permanent backup
(prefe
At the moment if you visit bitcoin.org then you're recommended to
download the full client. I think we all agree that at some point we
need to start presenting users with something more like this:
To get started, download wallet apps A or B.
If you'd like to contribute your computing resources t
19 matches
Mail list logo
