Published on: 2012-07-13T15:20:58+00:00
The discussion revolves around the best way to present a list of Bitcoin clients on bitcoin.org. The author suggests creating a page listing major and vetted clients instead of using a wiki page that may contain low-quality options. The list should be ordered based on a weighted average of features, security, and goodness for the network. The author proposes combining prose descriptions and feature matrices to give users a better understanding of each client's strengths and weaknesses.Gregory Maxwell expresses his dislike for feature matrices, arguing that they encourage "checkbox decision making" and are often biased. He believes that important infrastructure gets overlooked in favor of minor features that make nice bullet points. Instead, he suggests that users should read through all the text to understand the tradeoffs and compromises of each client.Alan Reiner thinks that feature matrices can be useful for quickly finding specific features or criteria without reading through all the text. However, Maxwell disagrees, stating that feature matrices are seldom good for decision-makers and can be biased by marketing departments. He provides an example of MyBitcoin, which would have been the dominant option based on a matrix comparison but ended up costing people a lot.Wladimir disagrees with removing the overview page or moving it to the wiki. He believes that other open-source clients deserve a mention on the Bitcoin.org page and that following links from the site is safer than searching on Google or app stores. He suggests that the reference client should remain first on the main page, but a neutral ordering could be used for alternative clients.Stefan Thomas discusses the effectiveness of feature matrices for new users. While he acknowledges that a well-designed matrix can be user-friendly, he argues that they can be unhelpful and confusing for those who are not technologically inclined. He suggests that a feature matrix could be a useful addition to the Bitcoin wiki page.The conversation also covers the difficulty in choosing an XMPP client and the potential usefulness of a wiki for listing features and differentiating aspects of each client. It is agreed that the current client page format using short pieces of text to communicate differences is easier for users to understand.One email suggests moving the project to a wiki, as it allows anyone to update information and is more up-to-date. The author argues that wikis are recognizable as community-generated, while Github-based pages tend to be dominated by developers. They suggest that bitcoin.org should educate users about the system and available options.In an email exchange between Jeff Garzik and Gregory Maxwell, they discuss the creation of a controversial page and the need for pull requests for non-trivial changes. Some people express concern about the creation of this page, fearing it would lead to useless disputes. There is a suggestion to remove the page due to the increasing cost of dealing with it.The Bitcoin community discusses the idea of having a randomized client page on Bitcoin.org. Alan Reiner disagrees with the idea, stating that it is not fair for users to have an inconsistent page that sometimes recommends less-developed solutions. Instead, he suggests creating a subjective list by someone trusted to understand what is good for users. Gregory Maxwell reveals that the original layout was not accidental, and Jim admits to being secretly pleased with MultiBit's position on the page.The discussion revolves around the notion of randomization and fairness in deciding which Bitcoin client should be displayed first on the main page of Bitcoin.org. It is suggested that someone who understands what is good for users and has familiarity with the programs should be the one to decide. This person can take input from others but ultimately make the decision based on their interpretation of what's best for Bitcoin.org users.In an email from Jim, he admits to being secretly pleased with the original layout of MultiBit's position on the Bitcoin client page. However, he also believes that it is only fair to switch around the positions. This ordering was not accidental.The article discusses the complexities of Bitcoin for new users and how the clients page on bitcoin.org does a good job of explaining the different software options available. It also addresses the issue of trust and how having the clients linked from the "mothership" of bitcoin.org gives credibility to all alternative clients. The author suggests that open source clients should be the only ones included.In an email conversation between Amir Taaki and a Bitcoin Wiki editor, they discuss whether or not to remove a page on the Wiki that lists multiple Bitcoin clients. Taaki argues that there is no reason to remove the page and emphasizes the importance of bitcoin.org as a neutral resource for the community. He recommends trying out new clients such as Electrum and MultiBit.The discussion revolves around the Bitcoin Wiki and the clients page on bitcoin.org. One argument is against the removal of controversial content on a website, as it may be influenced by internal politics rather than considering the needs of end-users. The author suggests that all information about a system should be available on its website and opposes random changes without proper channels.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T03:47:12.561253+00:00