Bitcoin Forum

Looking forward to the results of this poll. Should be interesting.

Please explain your reasoning below.

I'm surprised you have two of the newer eWallet services posted but not the long standing WalletBit. We have been safely and securely processing Bitcoin transactions since July 2011. This makes us the longest operating Bitcoin eWallet service today and perhaps because there have been no major incidents it has largely gone below the public radar. The only major incident was the DDOS for ransom attack which WalletBit was able to overcome much sooner than any other target. It was in part our solution that lead to the attacks subsiding. When it comes to keeping eWallet funds safe no one can compare with WalletBit's track record.

As the marketing director and a Bitcoin enthusiast I will personally help new users through our support platform understand more about Bitcoin. Because we are an eWallet service there is no waiting for the block chain to sync and we have easy cell phone integration with WalletBit Mobile. We have added to weusecoins video to our homepage to assist in new users along with our new promotional video. What more could new Bitcoin users want in an eWallet service?

BitCoin-QT was a little intimidating for me when I first started using BitCoin (though I knew very little about the currency at the time). MultiBit made the learning process much smoother for me, especially since I didn't have to wait 24 hours for it to sync, lol. I would personally recommend MultiBit for new users, but I do want to see BitCoin-QT gain more user-friendly features (and for MultiBit to gain encryption as a feature).

Definitely hook noobs via the path of least resistance. If they are only going to have < 1 BTC to play around with they don't need to know too much. Coinbase, blockchain... hell even https://bitcoin-app.com/ can be good sandbox for them to learn!

Once they see the benefits and ease of use there's plenty of time to teach them more advanced stuff.

Telling them to install the client and wait to download all the blocks is a huge turn-off for many...

Ohh .. bad timing.

- https://bitcoin-app.com   <--  Facebook wallet.

I think at the very least they should be told of the different security/trust implications of the various options.

Bitcoin-QT
Trustless transaction verification.
You can fully verify that a transaction is valid.
6 confirmations guarantee funds are yours.

SPV Clients
You always have to assume that your server/peers are honest.
A malicious or compromised server can feed you transactions which are invalid on the blockchain.

E-Wallets
For hosted wallets, you have to assume the website operator wont take off with your bitcoins.
You have to trust all information from your balance, received transactions, sent transactions with the e-wallet provider.
Even for hybrid wallets like blockchain.info, you never know when the server starts serving you pages which capture your secret key
or will upload your decrypted wallet back to the server unless you check the source EVERY SINGLE time you use the site.

Obviously if you are running a business or online store, it is highly reccommended to use a full client.
If you cant do that, then atleast check multiple sources(blockchain.info/blockexplorer/SPV Client) to confirm payments made to you.

E-Wallets/SPV clients are great for watching addresses and a small hot wallet.

If they have an Android device they should obviously use BitcoinSpinner
 ;D

That option should be interpreted as "web wallets in general." I was just offering those two as examples.

I didn't see an Android app for your web wallet. Is it possible to read QR codes through a mobile web app?

<Shameful self promotion>

Just point them to my book : Bitcoin Step by Step : http:://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Step-by-ebook/dp/B00A1CUQQU/

Download Kindle reader for any OS: http:://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000493771

I walk users through setting up and securing Bitcoin-qt, along with how to use it.  I also cover web base wallets and configuring MFA.  I cover a number of topics that noob will need.
I've sold or given away just over 300 copies over the past few months. 

</Shameful self promotion>

That's just one idea.  When I joined Bitcoin, I found that there was a lot of information out there, almost too much to know where to start.  This is why I thought a short concise book that walked users through what they needed to know and pointed them to where they should look for more information would be useful.

This option would be optimal.

But we all know some people who don't want to hear about options because they don't have time, don't care, whatever. In THAT event I'd probably recommend the official client for people I inherently know that they know what they're doing, or blockchain.info for people who I think would prefer that sort of thing (with appropriate warnings of course).

This.

I agree that all disclaimers should be made, however, I don't see a problem with recommending an alternative client.  I recently downloaded the entire block chain and it was incredibly slow to put it mildly.  I think this will be a huge turnoff for those new to Bitcoin and some of the alternate clients can have alleviate that issue.

Newbies don't care about running a full node.  They want a piece of software that allows them to send and receive Bitcoins - anything beyond that is something they won't care about or want, especially if it adds additional inconvenience.  If it takes them 3 days before they can even use it, OF COURSE it'll be a huge turnoff for them!  Anyone who can't see this is simply in denial about it.

People are turned away from QT every day because of the lengthy syncing process.  We desperately need a newbie-friendly solution.  I've been pointing people to blockchain.info, but it's not perfect.  The perfect solution would be a downloadable client with blockchain.info speed and ease of use.

Who said anything about being "serious about bitcoin?"  SgtSpike seems to be talking about people who just heard about bitcoin, and want to try it out.  They have no idea if they want to be "serious" about it yet, they don't know much about it and have very little exposure to it.  At best they want to purchase something and the seller/merchant has indicated that they are willing to (or prefer to) accept bitcoin for payment.

If the "new user" can't quickly and easily accomplish the the transaction to gain exposure to the process, they'll never get to the point of learning enough about it to see the significant benefits it offers and become "serious" about it.

I think the reality is that for Bitcoin to take off it has to be something that a user doesn't have to be serious about.  They simply use the tools.  There should not have to be a whole lot of education about the topic.  Early adopters are the ones that are more willing to dig in and figure things out.  That's where we are now.  To move it forward, it should be simple and quick.

that's the definition of Electrum  ;D

Thank you, yes, this is exactly what I mean.

When I first got into Bitcoin, I wasn't at all serious about it.  I was trying out this new mining thing that had the potential to make me money, and it was intimidating (setting up QT and mining).  I can only imagine what a non-technically minded person might be thinking as they go through the cumbersome process of attempting to run QT, especially now that it takes days instead of hours to download and sync.

@gweedo, 99% of newbies aren't serious about Bitcoin.  Why do you insist that they should be pushed away?

I love the idea of Electrum, but the install process is a pain on Windows.  As far as I can tell, you need the Python package installed, then have to run some command from the command line to start it?  Regardless, I couldn't get past an error about a missing .dll (which it was looking for in the install directory??) when I last tried installing it.  It wasn't fun or easy, especially not for a newbie!  Once you have it to a point where it is a standalone install (doesn't require anything but Windows itself), then I think you'll have made significant progress!

Hmmm... must be a while since you last tried it! Currently, there are no pre-requisites for Python runtimes or special command-line stuff - both Windows builds (whether slush's or mine) are 100% self-contained and run out of the box.  Perhaps time to give it another try? :)

u forgot Armory... sad

Then bitcoin.org should be much more straightforward about that before showing ANY download links.  How about a simple choice in BIG typeface on the homepage, such as:

Do you intend to use Bitcoin as a regular user or do you want to run you own node (powerful computer required / setup typically takes 48h+ / NOT recommended for most laptops)?

Regular user: offer links to Electrum, Multibit, and Blockchain.info

Full node user: offer links to Qt / bitcoind  (+ optionally, Armory for extra security and deterministic wallets)

From a long time user of the official Bitcoin client, I switched a while ago to blockchain.info's web wallet.

I find it much appealing not having to deal with long blockchain download times and the low entry barrier needed to use Bitcoin.

So what if it's a beta?  That means zilch with regards to increasing usability to the average end user.  The average end user can't be expected to download the full blockchain, doesn't need to care about running a full node, and shouldn't have to have patience to use it.  It's like you're looking innovation straight in the eye while it is laying on the ground bleeding to death, then giving a solid right-hander to the jaw-bone.  Why?  Just, why?

I don't understand why you want so few people to use Bitcoin.  Most people around here would really like more people to use it, but you seem insistent upon pushing everyone but the geekiest away.  If your argument is that Bitcoin isn't ready for the masses, my argument is, lets work on making it ready for the masses!  A good first step is not recommending that they spend 3 days syncing up the full blockchain...

I'll post up the error screenshots when I get a chance.  This is the text that confused me:

Since the executable was throwing me errors, I thought I might have to follow those instructions (which obviously didn't help!).

Um, it was late at night...

Completely agree.

You clearly aren't going to see things my way no matter what I say, and I can assure you that I'm not going to see things your way no matter what you say.  No sense in discussing this any further.  Difference is, my way of seeing it reflects the reality of the world.  New users who aren't serious about bitcoin are going to continue to "try it out" regardless of whether you want them to or not.  I'm ok with this reality, you are welcome to keep wishing that they wouldn't if that is what you want to do.

Short answer: Yes.

The initial blockchain download is just too long for a person who may only try it once. I personally like Electrum, but I think a lot of people are restricted to iPhones and have to use a web wallet.

coinapult for new, casual users.  It can be driven from a cellphone, and the users don't have to handle the bitcoins and bitcoin addresses themselves.

With HTML 5 you can absolutely scan QR codes. Any HTML5 enabled phone can take pictures of QR codes using WalletBit Mobile. Opera on Android works the best actually framing your camera on screen.

Maybe we should move our "One Wallet. Every Platform" logo to the front page.

I chose web based clients. I truly think those are the easiest and most simple for newbies. Plus no downloading the chain block which takes WAY to long in my opinion.

I am sorry to have to say that i wouldn't recommend any client, because they are still not ready for the average new user i meet, and the stagnant exchange rates reflect that. Reminds me of the Russian fable about the pike, crawfish and swan, where all are going in different directions trying to accomplish the same thing:

http://ext.err.ee/images/92c6a956-735e-463c-b548-c48f2213a1d1/846_25.jpg


The whole process is still way too much of an uncertain, expensive hassle, despite all the hype and promotion.  :(

I recommend paper wallets to new users for any B they want to keep long-term. For spending, i recommend they just use the Blockchain online wallet, which they recharge as needed through Localbitcoins or Coinbase, or whatever is in their region of the world.

(We can't afford another Mybitcoin disaster. As far as i am concerned, Tom Williams could be behind any of the current online wallets too, because he got away with the Mybitcoin scam perfectly, and could do it again with minor changes. So could other scammers...)





 

It is inevitable that majority of "users" in future will run some sort of thin client or web client.
If you envision spending on the go, a light/web client is your only choice.

As long as the amounts stored on the web/thin client are small enough to cater for daily transactions,
it is perfectly fine. Im not sure about US, but here in asia most daily transactions for meals, small purchases
are still largely done with cash. I carry about a weeks worth of spending in my wallet as cash.
I top it up from the ATM when its running low.

If i lose my wallet, its bearable.

The people who will HAVE to run the full client are miners and business owners who receive large/numerous
transactions. Which is no big deal for any business(big or small) really.
Ultimately it is the miners who run the network, they decide whether a transaction is valid or is spent.
As long as they run a full node(they have to, to avoid forming invalid blocks) and there are numerous miners around the world,
the network is on sound footing.

I certainly didn't. I love Armory, but recommending that newbies use it would be rather stupid, so I didn't include it in the poll.

You're probably more technically inclined than my definition of "newbie."

Newbies who don't have the technical skills to understand the reference client (or better yet, plain old bitcoind) and why it acts as it does should not be encouraged to do anything with Bitcoin period.

For a vast majority of people in this world, Bitcoin is not good for them and they are not good for Bitcoin at this time.

Hopefully over time the system will mature and become more solid, and there will be more means by which good/bad actors in the community can be identified.   Then Bitcoin will be more appropriate for more people.

The point you make about inappropriately co-mingling the technical and social aspects is a good one.  Although there is probably a correlation between technically savvy persons and those who can recognize a social engineering scam, it is small enough such that I should not have done this to the extent that I did.

I think that it has done Bitcoin no small amount of damage to have had to many people who can be suckered into one scam or another, and this has naturally brought the scammers out in force.  Leveraging what slight correlation there might be between technically savvy people and those who have the mental equipment to avoid scams is worth something.

Bitcoin is, I believe, well enough established at this point that it's not going anywhere.  Thus, there should not need to be a strong incentive to 'recruit' and/or 'evangelize' without discrimination.  That is the main point I would like to make, and something I imagine that most of the community will disagree with.

I do applaud the efforts you yourself any anyone else who takes the time help those who are legitimately interested in Bitcoin.  For every technically skilled person who would fall for a scam there is a non-technically skilled person who would not, and a certain number of these will likely have a keen understanding of economics and monetary science (and/or strong feelings about liberty-ish stuff.)  These (rare) people are who I'd like to see diving in to Bitcoin at this juncture and are the one's to focus on helping.

As much of a turnoff as a lengthy download may be, losing all your BTC to some web-based scam would be an even bigger turnoff. 

That Bitcoin-QT has its inconveniences should be explained, but that the more convenient online wallets carry serious risks of loss that a noob is unlikely to be able to evaluate in an informed fashion.

Then people can decide on their own.  If someone just wants to play around with 1 BTC or so, they can probably take the risk of an online wallet, but if they want to put substantial money in play, they're probably best using an offline wallet and taking other security measures.  Offline storage, with backup, is still the best way to go for real security.

I'd personally recommend Coinbase of the online wallets, but a noob reading a bunch of recommendations and personal preferences from random people isn't going to be able to evaluate my opinion, decide if I'm on crack, and for that matter, even I am unaware of how Coinbase's track record will look in a year or two.  For that matter, they could be lying about every security precaution they supposedly take, and just be another Ponzi (although enough is known about the principals it seems unlikely).

In short, I don't think "we," whoever "we" are, can just recommend some alternative to a "real" Bitcoin client without noting that there are serious caveats and flaws to such alternatives that may very well outweigh their increased convenience.

Everyone really has to decide their own risk tolerance.

We should recommend noobs to stay away from computers completely!

signed :)

+100000

Just in case anybody is interested to continue this:  write me a pm. Domain + project is for sale for almost nothing..

I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole (aka, trolling mildly) in my OP on this subject.  Your adjustment captures my true feeling better.

In actual fact, I have described the system to certain of my highly technically inclined friends and suggested that a modest (pocket change) speculative move into it has some logic.  For people I truly care about (i.e., family) I have suggested they NOT play with it, but some of the BTC I hold is earmarked for them in the event that it continues it's trajectory which over the last year I view as reasonably healthy.

To my surprise, nobody I know personally has been fascination by Bitcoin from a philosophical level.  I'm surprised mostly because I have friends from all over the spectrum in terms of their interests, abilities, etc.  Most people do seem to have a sub-conscious trust in our state sanctioned monetary regimes.  I'm pretty sure that at some point this trust will prove to have been mis-placed.

Voted yes and suggested MultiBit.

But any lightweight client is fine.

The qt client is not user-friendly, it force you to download the whole blockchain wich takes like a day, it automatically creates a wallet without even telling you where it is etc etc... It would not take a lot to improve the usability and interface, just  copy-pasting the ideas of multibit would be awesome, but the developers prefer to focus on the core features (and they are right), so suggesting it to new people isn't a good idea.
Yes, once you know how bitcoin works and you learn about wallets and blockchain you probably will want to use it, but until you learn these things, something like MultiBit wich instantly works is much better.

Things like blockchain.info are fine too but i prefer a client over a web based thing.

The QT client is extremely not noobie friendly. Im surprised people even use it.

Well then I guess Bitcoin will never be main stream.

I strongly recommend that new users DO NOT use the satoshi client. I typically recommend Paytunia if they are super noob, or blockchain.info if they're ready for a bit more advanced functionality.

I follow the twitter feed for keyword "Bitcoin" and it's amazing how frequently some new person says something like, "wow just downloaded bitcoin and it takes forever! this is ridiculous!" And for everyone who bothers to tweet about it, a hundred more just got turned off.

The satoshi client is important for a number of reasons, but noobs should not be directed to it, ever. It shouldn't even be mentioned to them.

But we HAVE point and click options right now.  QT ISN'T for newbies.  We have OTHER options that ARE for newbies.  Why do you insist upon bringing QT to the newbie-friendly level when even Gavin has stated that that is not its purpose?

I agree wholeheartedly.

Are you still arguing with him over his opinion that bitcoin should only be used by those who have a deep understanding of the inner workings and a true dedication to bitcoin?  I clicked ingore and stopped wasting my time on that argument.

You obviously didn't read my statement. Bitcoins isn't for newbies, I don't know if you knew. You do also know that those other options are suppose to be "complimentary" to QT. If you took the time to read things.


This saddens me cause we are debating like we should be on this forum. Yet this bitcoin elitist obviously thinks it is a debate not to have or argument cause my opinion is different. You troll you get ignored, your opinion is different you get ignore also, very sad. This is also a big issue people not facing facts and learning from history.

Bitcoin is for anyone who wants to use it. And yes, those other options are complimentary to QT, in that they cater to newbies.  Thus, we should be pointing newbies to them, not QT.  Seems pretty straightforward, right?  Point newbies to the newbie-friendly software instead of the geek-friendly software?

Normally, I'd give up as well, but I believe this is the most important issue facing Bitcoin today.  It needs to be fixed, badly.

I don't disagree, making sure that new users have a diverse selection of well maintained and user friendly clients to choose from is definitely important.  Arguing with gweedo, who believes that "Right now noobies that aren't serious or fully invested into learning and studying bitcoin shouldn't be using it" however, is a waste of time.

The conversation about how to educate new users, and which clients they should consider, can exist without constantly having to tell gweedo that "Bitcoin is for anyone who wants to use it".

You took that way out of context, is so bad that newbies should stay away from bitcoins for another year or two? I don't see the issue, yet he doesn't explain his side.

Cutting 24 hours down to 3 still isn't acceptable, and will still push people away.  There are other issues as well - some of the other clients are easier to use, more intuitive, and more explanatory.  That's why newbies should be pointed to them.

I completely disagree with you that Bitcoins are not for newbies at this time.  We have newbie-friendly software - we should point newbies to it.  QT is not ready for newbies - I agree with you on that.  But other Bitcoin clients ARE ready for newbies.  So why do we not point newbies to the clients that are ready for newbies?

Newbies don't need to learn how to sign a message (I've never used that feature myself) or create a rawtx (again, never done it).  You can use bitcoin for a lifetime and never "need" to do either of those things.  If people want to take the time to learn more about the advanced features and use the QT client, then more power to them, but no one NEEDS to learn it, not everyone WANTS to learn it, and not everyone even has the capabilities to learn it.  You shouldn't force people to learn the most advanced version of a software before learning any of it.  Kids don't learn calculus before learning algebra.  People should be introduced to a version of Bitcoin that is extremely easy to use and intuitive, and those that want to learn more can learn more from there.

QT pushing people into the deep end of the pool before they ever learn how to swim.  No wonder they immediately get out and never want to give it another shot.

The issue is that people who could learn how to use Bitcoin TODAY are being pushed away for no good reason at all.  Not only do they miss out on the benefit of using Bitcoin, but we miss out on the potential that they offer more goods and services to purchase with Bitcoin, or that they offer more Bitcoins with which to buy the goods and services we are offering.  The more people who use Bitcoin, the better off everyone involved in Bitcoin will be.  Therefore, it is senseless to push people away from Bitcoin.  There is no reason that newbies should stay away from Bitcoin.

Ok, a few counterpoints:

1)  Newbies are going to try using Bitcoin regardless of whether you think they should or should not be using it right now.  If they download QT, they will have a bad experience, they rag on Bitcoin every chance they get, and we lose potential adoption.  If they use blockchain.info, they like it, they start using it more, they send praises about it to their friends, and we gain adoption.  Now how can you possibly say that case #1 is better?

We aren't delaying those users from trying out Bitcoin - they are trying it out whether we like it or not.  We are permanently pushing those people away from Bitcoin by offering them a client not made for people new to Bitcoin.  Your proposal to ask them to wait is preposterous and unachievable.  People are going to try Bitcoin if they want to try it, and nothing you or I can do will stop it.  We may as well show them the best we have to offer instead of giving them a piece of software that is confusing and takes several hours before it is ready to use.

2)  People are used to software that is ready to use as soon as it is installed.  People are also used to wire transfers taking 3-4 days.  People are NOT used to software taking 3-4 days, and that's the whole issue.  You can't expect people to understand why it takes so long to sync to the network when they've never experienced anything like this before.  Why do you think threads titled something along the lines of "why is this taking so long to sync" appear almost daily on reddit?

3)  The network is perfectly fine with the number of full nodes we have running.  There is no legitimate reason to require people new to Bitcoin to run full nodes.

4)  I've never used a deposit box either.  I know it exists now, but I didn't know they existed before I started using a bank account.  Again, requiring people to know all facets of a particular technology before they start using any of it is silly.  It's like teaching a full course of algebra before allowing the students to do any problems on paper.  Why do that?  Instead, teach them a little bit at a time, let them use it, and then teach them more.  We shouldn't require that users know all of it before using any of it.  That's just silly.

5)  QT is more difficult to use than blockchain.info, especially if you don't know what the terminology means.  Blockchain.info explains in very clear terms what everything means - at least, much more clearly than QT does.  On the wallet homepage, for instance, it says in big bold lettering, "This is your Bitcoin address: 1blahblahblah." And yes, most people don't have much patience, so we give them the app that doesn't require patience, not the app that does.  You believing people should have more patience doesn't give it to them.

6)  Why does anyone need to understand more than the send and receive function of Bitcoin to use it?  Back to the math example, that's like saying you shouldn't use addition unless you also know algebra.  Why?  People should use it at the level they are comfortable with, and sometimes, that might only include the basic send and receive functionality.  Also, we all have to start somewhere - you can't instantly know everything about Bitcoin or anything else.  To learn algebra, you must first learn addition.  To learn about the blockchain, you must first understand sending and receiving, and often, that understanding only comes when you actually use the Bitcoin software.  So let them use addition first, and if they want to learn algebra on top of it, they can do so.


When I first started using Bitcoin, I knew very little about it.  I was skeptical, suspicious, and all I wanted to do was mine some Bitcoin and cash them out for USD as quickly as possible before I was stuck holding the bag in a scam ponzi system.  So, all I needed to know how to do was receive Bitcoins, then send them out again.  Once I got used to using Bitcoin by cashing out my coins a few times, I realized that it wasn't a scam, there was no central entity in control of things, and I became genuinely interested in the technology.  I learned more about the blockchain, the various features available to me, etc.  But I still don't know everything the client can do, nor do I believe I need to know everything it can do.  I don't understand the maths behind most of it, and I don't fully understand everything about the network or the blockchain.  Certainly, when I first started using Bitcoin, I knew nothing about any of that.

If you're saying that a person needs to understand Bitcoin and the Bitcoin network before they start using Bitcoin, then 99% of the people here (myself included) shouldn't be here, because the vast majority of us started trying out Bitcoin without having a complete understanding of "Bitcoin and the Bitcoin network."

TL:DR; Everyone has to start somewhere.  You're proposing a finish without a start.