So when I see an install process that involves manual dependency resolution
Perhaps the page is not clear about that, but there is not one install process, there is choice. Linux users have the choice between install from source and a tarball that contains all the dependencies. Windows users too have choice between a zip file and a binary let me know if the webpage failed to convey this. |
|
|
|
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.
I agree with what you wrote here; it is true that we do not have an easy installation method yet. but your text does say that; it says that the software itself, not the installation, isn't user friendly and is more suited for tech savvy people. in addition, I believe the page should make it clear that it is a review, and that it does not necessarily reflect the views of the client developers. |
|
|
|
I went with the objective comparison table intentionally to avoid all this subjective arguing  I think that your table is very useful, but it serves a different purpose: it is an objective comparison, not an introduction text. For the 'clients' page, Amir asked me to write a 300 words description of Electrum, which I did. Amir's request made me believe that the 'clients' page was going to contain descriptions of their work made by developers, and not an objective comparison by independent reviewers. Amir brought some corrections to my text, which was consistent with the idea of developers describing their work, since he contributes to Electrum too. But finally my text went to the trash, and Electrum gets a completely different 'review' text written by someone who probably never used it. You can understand that I'm pissed. why was I asked to write a description in the first place? |
|
|
|
ThomasV, sorry, but I agree with Mike Hearn text, saying explicitly that a client-server solution provides less privacy.
I was not complaining about that; I was complaining about what he wrote on the need to be "tech savvy". Now if there's going to be a similar page about "web wallets", I hope that mike will be fair enough to mention the same lack of privacy associated with them, and the fact that "you don't contribute your computer's resources to the network" when using them. Oh, and did I mention that Electrum too has "the ability to construct transactions whils disconnected from the internet"? no, I did not, because I think that is the sort of technical detail that we do not want to mention on that kind of page. but apparently Mike has decided it's important to be mentioned for some clients. |
|
|
|
|
cool! we should work together
|
|
|
|
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.
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. FYI, the description I initially provided for the site is the following: 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.
|
|
|
|
Make it an option? Set decimals ( 0 - 8 | default: 2 ): [ ] indeed, when nobody seems to agree on something, it has to be an option.  |
|
|
|
We did have a clickable link as well, but none of the clients supported it, so we took it off. Now that Armory does, we will make sure this gets added back to the site with the next update.
none of the clients, really? Electrum and Multibit have been supporting bitcoin: URIs for months... |
|
|
|
Still no luck for me, no new confirmations while program is open. I opened second client after an hour and it already had 6 confirmations (see pic).
oh, I think that I know what's wrong here; thanks for the pic! this is caused by the new stratum protocol: the client cannot detect when the link is down, because it does not poll anymore. I believe the best way to fix this is to add a 'ping' message sent by the client. Also... a mini request: could you add ".0" for integer numbers under "Amount" tab? It looks a little bit strange the way it is now.
yes, I can do that, but I am not sure if it really makes sense... are there other people who would want it? |
|
|
|
|
version 0.45 is released!
new features:
* the Qt and Android clients can generate and read QR codes that contain a requested amount.
* The Qt client can save QR codes to a file.
* A new script, watch_address, is provided: it displays the balance of any address, and gets notified everytime a transaction occurs. It replaces the 'electrum balance' command.
|
|
|
|
how can I unsubscribe from this thread, please?
Delete every single post you made in this thread. I think that I made only one post before that one, but it is difficult to find where it is, the thread is too long... there should be an easier way |
|
|
|
|
IMO the proposal by luke would better go on the wiki
|
|
|
|
People these days can't seem to remember more than 5 letter/number/symbol combinations. Yet 20 years ago people could remember multiple 10 digit numbers...
Actually, seven is the magic number and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest this has changed. you guys are confusing working memory and long-term memory. |
|
|
|
|
how can I unsubscribe from this thread, please?
|
|
|
|
version 0.44 1-click executable for Windows is ready! See link in top post.
great, thanks |
|
|
|
Is it possible to use electrum in python(or another language?) to query the balance of addresses other then one that is found in the wallet(aka query the balance of an address I don't own)
sure. in a terminal, type: watch_address <your address>
(this post was edited in order to reflect changes occuring in version 0.45) |
|
|
|
$ electrum -b addresses
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/anorber/bin/electrum", line 291, in <module>
if item['is_in']: ni += 1
KeyError: 'is_in'
thanks for reporting that. I just commited a fix to the repo |
|
|
|
|
to avoid running bitcoind, the wifi router could forward the transaction to an Electrum server, and get confirmations from it.
I am interested in this project and I can provide technical assistance towards such a solution.
|
|
|
|
|
I released version 0.44. can you make a windows build?
servers will not remain fully compatible with the older clients
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I just released version 0.44
this new release is a mandatory protocol update.
you will need to upgrade your client in order to use Electrum;
older clients will no longer receive notifications, and may experience connection problems.
if you cannot upgrade your client, please visit your settings and select the native protocol; it will remain supported for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
