Bitcoin Forum

I think either layout is fine. But what I have a stronger opinion on is the terminology used on that page.

When a new Bitcoin-user arrives on that page (a non-techie), he will think the following:
1) "What the hell is a "graphical interface" and how does that relate to Bitcoin"
2) "Are all these softwares equivalent? Do they serve the same purpose? Do I need one or several of them?"
3) "Which one is the official client?"

To solve these questions, I propose the following:
1) Change the "Graphical Interface" title to "Bitcoin Client Software"
2+3) Create little blub under the heading, saying "Below you will find several leading Bitcoin clients. Any of them will work for all basic Bitcoin functionality. Bitcoin-Qt is the original software, and if you're unsure which one to use, you should default to Bitcoin-Qt."  <-- I'd also append this last sentence to the beginning of the Bitcoin-Qt description. The current sentence "Bitcoin Qt is the frontend for the original code written by Satoshi" will be confusing/meaningless to any non-techie  ;)

Great idea to get these clients on that page!!

FWIW, here is a picture of my original suggestion (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/32), that should IMO still be open for voting on:

I like this the best. It's similar to Wikipedia "Comparison of x" articles, which is a format people are already familiar with. It'd need some explanatory text at the top and ideally info about every feature, though.

it probably needs more explanation than all the other texts combined. strongly vote against this one.

FWIW, here is a picture of my original suggestion (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/32), that should IMO still be open for voting on:

- i very much agree with erik's wording suggestions (and personally, picked the vertical option).

- i agree with jeff about vetting clients' security/trustworthiness/buginess very carefully first.

- luke's version needs to be killed with fire reserved for more technical, wikipedia-type articles.

I think it would be great for augmenting the first page presented here. It could be behind a link such as "Click here for a comprehensive comparison of these clients". No reason to stick with only one or the other.

Can we do this after 1.0 ?

I think it would be great for augmenting the first page presented here. It could be behind a link such as "Click here for a comprehensive comparison of these clients". No reason to stick with only one or the other.

Armory is security-oriented and targets the high end of the user base

FWIW, here is a picture of my original suggestion (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/32), that should IMO still be open for voting on:

I think either layout is fine. But what I have a stronger opinion on is the terminology used on that page.

When a new Bitcoin-user arrives on that page (a non-techie), he will think the following:
1) "What the hell is a "graphical interface" and how does that relate to Bitcoin"
2) "Are all these softwares equivalent? Do they serve the same purpose? Do I need one or several of them?"
3) "Which one is the official client?"

To solve these questions, I propose the following:
1) Change the "Graphical Interface" title to "Bitcoin Client Software"

2+3) Create little blub under the heading, saying "Below you will find several leading Bitcoin clients. Any of them will work for all basic Bitcoin functionality. Bitcoin-Qt is the original software, and if you're unsure which one to use, you should default to Bitcoin-Qt."  <-- I'd also append this last sentence to the beginning of the Bitcoin-Qt description. The current sentence "Bitcoin Qt is the frontend for the original code written by Satoshi" will be confusing/meaningless to any non-techie  ;)

Great idea to get these clients on that page!!

Let's not list other clients until we are assured they can (a) properly handle a block chain reorg and (b) properly handle BIP16 transactions, and do not have otherwise glaring usability or security issues that prevent mainstream endorsement and use.

Indeed...  IMO new users will just be bewildered by all that info.

I am not sure this language helps any.

"Security-oriented" means little more than that the other clients have security issues, or that the other clients are for people who don't mind their money getting stolen.  Not likely the intended message.

"High end" doesn't mean anything useful.  Is someone who does a lot of transactions "high end"?  Someone who has a lot of money and carries a Gucci purse needs their bitcoin client to be shiny?  Perhaps it has better support for multi-party transactions?  These advantages would be better conveyed with more specific language.

Why not have both?  The easy to read one on top.  Luke's version underneath.

Great!

I agree with comments. Dont call it graphical user interface.
It has to be a text for everyone.

I like Luke JR suggestion but it should be on another page such as "comparison table" or something and needs some explainations.
The installer time 2hours, should maybe be called something else.

Sound like it takes 2 hours to install.

I also think the official clients should have a mark such as

Bitcoin QT
"official client"

There must be Android and Iphone clients such as Bitcoin spinner and others.
I see them as cruzial to get Bitcoin popular.
People allways carry their phones and they are super easy to use.

Why is Paytunia (https://paytunia.com) not listed as an ewallet ? It's secure and operated by payment software professionals with over 20 years combined experience.
For most new non-technical users, ewallets are going to be the easiest option.
ewallets enable thin mobile clients. Paytunia on android is one of the most reliable mobile client, without the need for the user to backup embedded keys.

Bitcoin brings about a new freedom (freedom of operating one's own downloaded wallet) but it does not remove an existing freedom (freedom of choosing a service provider when it makes sense, like for mobile use).

I'm not familiar with this space so I didn't add them. Best to add them after.

Why is it best to add them after ? after what by the way?

@genjix

Please include paytunia among the ewallet option even if some people are reluctant to do so because they see us as their competitors.
Bitcoin.org until now is not a self promotion tool but is meant to be a neutral source of information for the bitcoin community.
By the way, it should be localized : I would like to edit a French version of it (I know you will like the idea;o)).

I vote for bitcoin-QT being described as the "reference" client maintained by the original developers.  This is actually an important distinction because many aspects of the Bitcoin protocol are not formally documented beyond by reference to how it is implemented in this particular client.  (The distinction could probably apply just as well to bitcoind, since the "reference" has more to do with the protocol implementation, not so much to do with the user interface.)

The bitcoind core is only "reference" because it has a vast majority right now (part of the problem). It isn't maintained by the original developers (Satoshi and Sirius).

Bitcoind still has the distinction of being the direct descendant of the client created by the original developers.

And I assert that it's "reference" because if it's not, then the Bitcoin protocol as a whole is unconscionably underdocumented.

Case in point: What happens if some other client becomes more popular, and there turns out to be a subtle difference in the implementations that result in a block chain fork?

BTW if you want to write a BitcoinMedia about it then give me an email.

Two questions: is it open-source? Does it store people's keys (wallet) locally on the device?

All clients listed on this page are free to use, open source, audited by the community and none required any registration or personal information to get started. You should feel free to try any or all of them. Each client will have its own wallet and you can send coins between them as you would between two people.

Bitcoin-Qt:  The original software written by Satoshi Nakamoto, the projects founder. If you aren't sure which program to pick, this is a good bet. This application is a peer-to-peer client that builds the backbone of the Bitcoin network. It is suited for enthusiasts, merchants, miners, developers and people who want to help support the project. People who run Bitcoin-Qt are first class network citizens and have the highest levels of security, privacy and stability. However, it can be very resource intensive and you should be willing to leave it running in the background so other computers can connect to yours. If your computer is low powered or you aren't willing to tolerate a 24-hour+ initial start time, you should consider other clients. Cutting edge features tend to be implemented in other clients first.

MultiBit: This client supports Windows, MacOS and Linux. Its primary focus is on being fast and easy to use, even for people with no technical knowledge. It has a YouTube channel to help you learn the software, and includes helpful features such as an exchange rate ticker. MultiBit supports many languages such as German, Spanish and Greek. MultiBit synchronizes with the network much faster than Bitcoin-Qt and should be ready for you to use within a few minutes. This is a good choice for non technical users who want an easy to use experience, especially if you use a Mac.

Armory: This client has a focus on advanced wallet management features, such as the ability to construct transactions whilst disconnected from the internet. It operates in conjunction with a Bitcoin-Qt install. It is developed primarily for Linux, but also supports Windows and MacOS. It requires a large amount of RAM to operate and if you use Windows, it requires a 64 bit version. It is a good choice for tech-savvy enthusiasts or merchants who want to try out some of the latest ideas in the Bitcoin world.

Electrum: This client has a focus on being fast, having low resource usage and making it easy to back up your wallet. It runs on Linux and Windows. It's well suited to tech-savvy individuals who want to get started with Bitcoin immediately. It operates in conjunction with a remote server which handles the most complicated parts of the Bitcoin system, which is why it's fast. However, by running this client you don't contribute your computers resources to the core network, and the remote servers that help give it good performance have the ability to see all your transactions and tie them together. Whilst you need provide no personal information to use Electrum (as is true for all Bitcoin apps), this means the privacy level is lower than for other clients such as Bitcoin-Qt. Merchants are recommended to use Bitcoin-Qt or other p2p clients. Electrum is designed for people with a reasonably high level of technical ability.

Electrum: This client has a focus on being fast, having low resource usage and making it easy to back up your wallet. It runs on Linux and Windows. It's well suited to tech-savvy individuals who want to get started with Bitcoin immediately. It operates in conjunction with a remote server which handles the most complicated parts of the Bitcoin system, which is why it's fast. However, by running this client you don't contribute your computers resources to the core network, and the remote servers that help give it good performance have the ability to see all your transactions and tie them together. Whilst you need provide no personal information to use Electrum (as is true for all Bitcoin apps), this means the privacy level is lower than for other clients such as Bitcoin-Qt. Merchants are recommended to use Bitcoin-Qt or other p2p clients. Electrum is designed for people with a reasonably high level of technical ability.

Electrum is a lightweight client that was designed to simplify the use of Bitcoin. There is no waiting time at startup, because Electrum does not download the Bitcoin blockchain. You do not need to perform regular backups, as your wallet can be recovered from a secret phrase that you can memorize or write on paper. Electrum is available for Linux, Windows and Android.

A key concept for the health of a decentralised system is variety. Variety
leads to a richness of characteristics that allow a system to remain
resilient to attack. A good analogy is that of a species, where having a
wild contrast in genetics, doesn't expose that species to any one specific
weakness and limits the effect that a disease can cause. Likewise, Bitcoin
gains an immunity from attack by having contrasting clients that approach
specific problems in different ways.

Next up would be a page for mobile / web wallets, maybe?

I agree that for now, we should recommend Bitcoin-Qt as the default option until we have more experience with other clients and their general level of polish and robustness is better. Bitcoin-Qt has an unfortunate name. The UI toolkit used should really not be exposed to end users. I'd support renaming it to something like "Bitcoin Core" or "Bitcoin Classic".

Noob users want "the Bitcoin client", they don't know what is the Satoshi client :D

ThomasV, sorry, but I agree with Mike Hearn text, saying explicitly that a client-server solution provides less privacy.

+1
I think also that there must be a page/section dedicated to web wallets and another one to mobile clients.

As the main developer of Electrum, I strongly disagree with this message. It is inaccurate, and it sounds like you are trying to scare users off.
Electrum simplifies the use of Bitcoin, because it removes the need to download the complete blockchain, and to do regular backups of your wallet.
These two aspects of the Satoshi client make it require a substantially higher "level of technical ability" than Electrum.

So, the main question is whether the description of clients should be left to developers or independent reviewers.

For instance Electrum has an android client - would that get another entry for mobile clients?

Sorry again Thomas, but I'd suggest not including Electrum on a page for Android clients. Here is what you arrive at if you click the "New Android client!" link:

  http://ecdsa.org/electrum/android.html

I went with the objective comparison table intentionally to avoid all this subjective arguing ;)

The reason I put this (and genjix agreed with me) is that your clients website is clearly not intended for regular end users. It lists "easy to review the source" as a feature, for example. It's great that you've focused on making backups easy and this is recognized in the text. That is only one component of usability. If I pointed somebody who is not a programmer to your page, or even someone who is but who isn't very experienced, they'd probably run into problems at the first step of simply installing the app. When was the last time you went to the website of a typical software company and was told to download/install Python yourself?

If the install and website was more end user focused, eg, provided regular installers for the common platforms, dropped the technical stuff from the front page, then I'd probably not have said that. It can certainly be changed in future. The core software itself doesn't seem to have any particular usability issues.

So when I see an install process that involves manual dependency resolution

OK, sure. I don't see the usability of installation as separate from the usability of software, but it can be argued both ways. I think if that gets fixed we can just drop the parts about it being for tech-savvy people entirely.

Agree we can make it clear the reviews are independent. Amir?

For what it's worth, there's a reason I'm so focused on the install. At Google we measure how many users make it from "see product web page" to "running the software". It's amazing to see how people drop off through this funnel. There are some interesting findings from these studies:

• Users abandon installs a lot. Of people who see the web page, typically only a small percentage will actually end up running the software.
• Literally every additional click required kills a significant number of installs. Users really do give up at every possible point through an install. Google has put a ton of effort into reducing the number of clicks needed to install our software. If you have Google Update already active on the system, the number of clicks on Windows to go from the Chrome web page to it being open and running on your desktop is tiny - actually there are no confirmation prompts at all, IIRC.
• The longer an install takes, eg because of a large download, the lower your success rate will be.
• If anything is even slightly confusing, that will cause users to drop out too. For instance the way MacOS X handles software installation by default is consistent, GUI oriented and totally confusing (I'm talking about the DMG + drag/drop to apps folder). There's a reason virtually all consumer software has a link to the Applications folder with a giant arrow telling you what to do, and it's because huge numbers of users won't be able to correctly install the software if you don't do that, despite that it works exactly the same way for almost every MacOS app. Apple really dropped the ball on the design of this setup.

So when I see an install process that involves manual dependency resolution, what I see is not a minor picky issue but a massive drop in the success rate of users who click through that. Like probably >90% abandon rate. And if users click through to this client and are overwhelmed by the instructions, or fail to correctly follow them, they won't necessarily go back and try a new one. They'll just drop out entirely and we'll lose them for a while until one day they decide to try Bitcoin again (assuming that ever happens).

This can largely be resolved with simple installers. The advantage of being open source is you don't require a long EULA either (this also drops the success rate). You can literally have a one click install'n'go experience. You can, if you want, beat most commercial software for ease of install.

Electrum is a client that was designed to simplify the use of Bitcoin. Electrum does not download the blockchain and startup times are instant which it does by pooling remote blockchain servers. You do not need to perform regular backups of your wallet as your wallet can be recovered from a secret passphrase which you can memorize or write on a piece of paper.

Electrum's focus is speed, with low resource usage and making wallet backups easy. It operates in conjunction with remote servers that handle the most complicated parts of the Bitcoin system, which is why it's fast. However, by running this client you don't contribute your computers resources to the core network, and the remote servers that help give it good performance have the ability to see all your transactions and tie them together. Whilst you need provide no personal information to use Electrum (as is true for all Bitcoin apps), this means the privacy level is lower than for other clients. Merchants are recommended to use or other p2p clients. Electrum is not quite user friendly yet, making it more suited for tech-saavy individuals currently.

Electrum's focus is speed, with low resource usage and making wallet backups easy.

Electrum's focus is speed, with low resource usage and making wallet backups easy. Electrum does not download the blockchain and startup times are instant because it operates in conjunction with remote servers that handle the most complicated parts of the Bitcoin system.

Electrum's focus is speed, with low resource usage and making wallet backups easy. Electrum does not download the blockchain and startup times are instant because it operates in conjunction with remote servers that handle the most complicated parts of the Bitcoin system. However, Electrum clients don't contribute resources to the core network, instead relying on high performance servers. These servers have the ability to infer information about your payment history, meaning the privacy level is lower than for conventional clients. This is a trade-off of the Electrum style technology. But there are benefits too; you do not need to perform regular backups of your wallet as your wallet can be recovered from a secret passphrase which you can memorize or write on a piece of paper. Electrum is not quite user friendly yet, making it more suited for tech-saavy individuals currently, but development is active in tackling those challenges.

I had organized the clients into a similar table a few months ago, with something simple designed for the first-time user.

http://lovebitcoins.org/getStarted.html (http://lovebitcoins.org/getStarted.html)

I wanted to put more emphasis on the mobile clients, because this is much easier and faster for a first-time user to get up and running.  This is especially true whenever I meet someone in person, since they always have their phone, but they never have a computer.

If the newbie likes what they see in the mobile, they can always become more of a power user. 

+1

Only problem with this, is that they are not as secure.
That should be fine if it could be pointed out in a way that doesn´t sound to intimidating.

I can picture less computer savvy people being turned off by Luke's table because they wouldn't know what 1/2 the columns mean and whether they are important.  I personally prefer it, but I agree with the suggestion that it should be on a separate "compare clients" page, or on the same page but below the screenshot & summary descriptions.

People tend to have very short attention spans when they are searching for a download link.  It might be helpful to order the clients by ease of use, starting with the most general/friendly clients and progressing towards the advanced/resource intensive clients.  I think it is safe to assume that advanced users already know what they want, so there is no need to cater to them on a page that is intended for everyone.

Solve this problem in a distributed fashion, rather than stuffing it all onto bitcoin.org.  Bitcoin.org, IMO, is the home of the "reference project" not the entire bitcoin community.  Emphasizing that months ago was why the forum was moved to bitcointalk.org.

On bitcoin.org (registered by Satoshi), I would rather see the Satoshi reference client and perhaps an "other clients" link on the wiki.

You don't see people calling for Mozilla to link to other browsers.  Rather than fighting over what a particular bitcoin.org page should look like, why not maintain an independently managed BitcoinClients.org website?  Or GetBitcoinClient.org or somesuch.

Most of all, solve this problem in a distributed fashion, rather than stuffing it all onto bitcoin.org.  Bitcoin.org, IMO, is the home of the "reference project" not the entire bitcoin community.  Emphasizing that months ago was why the forum was moved to bitcointalk.org.

It's a fair point that even having multiple clients could be a bit overwhelming, but people read about Bitcoin in the news, they search for Bitcoin on their favourite search engine, it'll take them to bitcoin.org. If they can't find a good client there they'll just assume there are none.

If the Satoshi client was completely satisfactory to everyone it might not be a big deal, but for performance/features/other reasons it seems that multiple desktop clients are here to stay. Not to mention that Satoshis code would need a lot of work to run well on mobiles, so there'd need to be at least a page for them.

is the table still available somewhere? the page as it is now is not in my taste. <choking down evil rant>

maybe the comparison table should go into the wiki and a link to the comparison should be at the top of the bitcoin.org clients page.

much better: http://dre.tx0.org/compare.htm (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83768)

link from bitcoin.org?