[REQUESTS] Minimal Electrum builds for Windows

[Tachikoma]

The problem is that Electrum's transactions are larger compared to QT's transactions, might need to be careful slashing fees.

[1714815291]

1714815291

[1714815291]

1714815291

[1714815291]

1714815291

[1714815291]

1714815291

[flatfly]

The problem is that Electrum's transactions are larger compared to QT's transactions, might need to be careful slashing fees.

Well I'm building from the official master branch, which happens to have this commit merged in recently:
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/commit/deb14f6fe82d01c06449c788ae44d48938478e3d

[btcven]

The problem is that Electrum's transactions are larger compared to QT's transactions, might need to be careful slashing fees.

Well I'm building from the official master branch, which happens to have this commit merged in recently:
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/commit/deb14f6fe82d01c06449c788ae44d48938478e3d

https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/commit/26c65dd65f7130ac030163b8a666f2b642cc0bbe

[ThomasV]

Please note that the builds distributed by flatfly are not the official Electrum builds.

* I am the copyright holder of Electrum, and I have decided to distribute it under the GNU General Public Licence.
* However, the builds distributed by flatfly are violating the GPL licence, because flatfly does not share the method and tools he used to generate his builds.
* As a consequence, there is no way for other developers to redo these builds. There is no easy way to check if the builds correspond to the official source code.
* In addition, the flatfly builds seem to have been done using some commercial software, whose licence also prohibits this use.
* The version numbers of the flatfly builds are often ahead of the official version, even if the official version is not finalized.
* Finally, the most alarming thing is that flatfly's real world identity is not known. If it turns out that he added stealware to the code, there will be way to find who he is.

[flatfly]

* However, the builds distributed by flatfly are violating the GPL licence, because flatfly does not share the method and tools he used to generate his builds.
* As a consequence, there is no way for other developers to redo these builds. There is no easy way to check if the builds correspond to the official source code.
* In addition, the flatfly builds seem to have been done using some commercial software, whose licence also prohibits this use.

What?

3 times wrong. The build process has been documented and has been using GPL tools for more than a year now, as has been posted just 2 pages back in this thread:
 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=73651.msg1635477#msg1635477

It has also been successfully transposed (and further documented) in another bitcoin project in the meantime:
 https://github.com/JahPowerBit/BoottleXCP_binaries

I even offered free hands-on training sessions to anyone interested.
There was no response to that offer, though.

* The version numbers of the flatfly builds are often ahead of the official version, even if the official version is not finalized.

Not a problem, since my builds are not the "official" ones, as has been made abundantly clear by the OP more than 2 years ago.
Also please adopt a more standard git branching model to reduce version number confusion.
  See: http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

Otherwise you just make all your users subject to potentially catastrophic bugs.

* Finally, the most alarming thing is that flatfly's real world identity is not known. If it turns out that he added stealware to the code, there will be way to find who he is.

I'm really not trying to hide my identity very hard (never used any VPN/Tor, reused my username across several sites, etc). A little google-fu is all it takes. Also, did you suddenly forget that you were keeping your online persona anonymous for years, until only a couple weeks ago?


I see no need to make such a demeaning post without doing some basic reading and engaging in private discussion first. This is disappointing.

[btcven]

* However, the builds distributed by flatfly are violating the GPL licence, because flatfly does not share the method and tools he used to generate his builds.
* As a consequence, there is no way for other developers to redo these builds. There is no easy way to check if the builds correspond to the official source code.
* In addition, the flatfly builds seem to have been done using some commercial software, whose licence also prohibits this use.

What?

3 times wrong. The build process has been documented and has been using GPL tools for more than a year now, as has been posted just 2 pages back in this thread:
 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=73651.msg1635477#msg1635477

It has also been successfully transposed (and further documented) in another bitcoin project in the meantime:
 https://github.com/JahPowerBit/BoottleXCP_binaries

I even offered free hands-on training sessions to anyone interested.
There was no response to that offer, though.

* The version numbers of the flatfly builds are often ahead of the official version, even if the official version is not finalized.

Not a problem, since my builds are not the "official" ones, as has been made abundantly clear by the OP more than 2 years ago.
Also please adopt a more standard git branching model to reduce version number confusion.
  See: http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

Otherwise you just make all your users subject to potentially catastrophic bugs.

* Finally, the most alarming thing is that flatfly's real world identity is not known. If it turns out that he added stealware to the code, there will be way to find who he is.

I'm really not trying to hide my identity very hard (never used any VPN/Tor, reused my username across several sites, etc). A little google-fu is all it takes. Also, did you suddenly forget that you were keeping your online persona anonymous for years, until only a couple weeks ago?


I see no need to make such a demeaning post without doing some basic reading and engaging in private discussion first. This is disappointing.

I don't see it wrong bringing some attention to the users on what build they are using. If an user comes to this thread and ask you to make him a package for windows and end up with problems or coins lost, he better had read the notice Thomas made as he won't get support from the supporters of the original builds that are in https://electrum.org so making it clear is not harmful for any of the interested parts.

[ThomasV]

3 times wrong. The build process has been documented and has been using GPL tools for more than a year now, as has been posted just 2 pages back in this thread:
 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=73651.msg1635477#msg1635477

It has also been successfully transposed (and further documented) in another bitcoin project in the meantime:
 https://github.com/JahPowerBit/BoottleXCP_binaries

I even offered free hands-on training sessions to anyone interested.
There was no response to that offer, though.

Sorry, I was not aware of that.
I was not notified that you changed your build method.

I do not watch this thread closely, and you never proposed to add your new build method to the official git repository.
It remains that you have been distributing builds made using a non-disclosed build method until last year, effectively violating the licence, and violating my copyright.

The version numbers of the flatfly builds are often ahead of the official version, even if the official version is not finalized.

Not a problem, since my builds are not the "official" ones, as has been made abundantly clear by the OP more than 2 years ago.

Yes, it is a problem because your version numbers suggest that your builds are somehow "more advanced", while in fact you are exposing users to code that is not ready for production.

I see no need to make such a demeaning post without doing some basic reading and engaging in private discussion first. This is disappointing.

What did you expect? that I would thank you for violating the GPL and for making anonymous releases ahead of time?
I did engage in private discussions a few years ago, and at that time you were not willing to publish your build method.

Electrum has since become very popular, and large amounts of money are at stake.
I feel that have the obligation to protect users against malware.

[flatfly]

3 times wrong. The build process has been documented and has been using GPL tools for more than a year now, as has been posted just 2 pages back in this thread:
 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=73651.msg1635477#msg1635477

It has also been successfully transposed (and further documented) in another bitcoin project in the meantime:
 https://github.com/JahPowerBit/BoottleXCP_binaries

I even offered free hands-on training sessions to anyone interested.
There was no response to that offer, though.

Sorry, I was not aware of that.
I was not notified that you changed your build method.

I do not watch this thread closely, and you never proposed to add your new build method to the official git repository.
It remains that you have been distributing builds made using a non-disclosed build method until last year, effectively violating the licence, and violating my copyright.

The version numbers of the flatfly builds are often ahead of the official version, even if the official version is not finalized.

Not a problem, since my builds are not the "official" ones, as has been made abundantly clear by the OP more than 2 years ago.

Yes, it is a problem because your version numbers suggest that your builds are somehow "more advanced", while in fact you are exposing users to code that is not ready for production.

I see no need to make such a demeaning post without doing some basic reading and engaging in private discussion first. This is disappointing.

What did you expect? that I would thank you for violating the GPL and for making anonymous releases ahead of time?
I did engage in private discussions a few years ago, and at that time you were not willing to publish your build method.

Electrum has since become very popular, and large amounts of money are at stake.
I feel that have the obligation to protect users against malware.

As you seem to have a selective memory, allow me to dig up some old emails:

But anyway, I don't think there's any compatibility issues with the licensing of Electrum.  

the current licence of Electrum is the GPL.

it means that you are not allowed to distribute binary versions without providing the "source code".
the definition of the "source code" includes any modifications added by yourself (bugfixes), and any additional information needed to derive the binary file (compilation instructions).

you are clearly not respecting this at the moment

Hmm I see...  

Actually I do provide the source code including my windows-specific modifications in the download (the binary file is just a package, containing the python interpreter and the PY source files).

But indeed, I haven't documented the compilation instructions at this time. I will work on that.

Should I stop making binaries in the meantime?

no, don't stop to make binaries.
but it would be good to provide compilation instructions. I will not be able to understand them, but I guess someone else will.

So, while there were no other existing builds for Windows, and Electrum was in need for greater market share, you had no issue accepting and even encouraging the "violation".  
I then posted my build instructions in this thread as soon as they were ready, i.e. a couple of builds later.  So while I don't expect any thanks, your way of handling this issue doesn't strike me as balanced. But who am I to judge...

Anyway, I don't think I want to waste more time on this. And I do understand the need for developers to protect end users from the threat of malware and financial loss, but if I may make a constructive suggestion that may greatly benefit you in the long run, consider working on your people skills.
 

[ThomasV]

So, while there were no other existing builds for Windows, and Electrum was in need for greater market share, you had no issue accepting and even encouraging the "violation".  
I then posted my build instructions in this thread as soon as they were ready, i.e. a couple of builds later.  So while I don't expect any thanks, your way of handling this issue doesn't strike me as balanced. But who am I to judge...

Anyway, I don't think I want to waste more time on this. And I do understand the need for developers to protect end users from the threat of malware and financial loss, but if I may make a constructive suggestion that may greatly benefit you in the long run, consider working on your people skills.

I think you are misinterpreting. I was never encouraging a violation of the licence.
On the contrary, I was asking you to publish your build method, so that other developers would be able to redo the same builds.
The fact that I did ask nicely, and using private messages, does not mean that I was encouraging the violation in any way; that is only your interpretation.

It is true that I was hoping to use your work in order to expand the "market share" of Electrum, but not the way you think.
I was not interested in your binaries per se, I was interested in the build method, so that I, or someone else, could redo the same binaries.
And there is nothing wrong with that, this is exactly what the GPL is for!
The GPL was written in order to prevent computer code written by A to become dependent on B because B refuses to share their modifications.

However, you did not comply with my request at that time, apparently because you were using a commercial package that prohibits this use.
Since you refused to comply, I decided to use other builds made with Wine, and to stop linking to your website.
I believe that it was the right thing to do, even if it took developers a lot of time to create these Wine builds.

Since then, you apparently managed to change your build method in a way that complies with the GPL, and you posted your new method on march 2013.
I am sorry, but I did not know about that until recently. I hope that new method can be added to the project.

[bitcats]

Since then, you apparently managed to change your build method in a way that complies with the GPL, and you posted your new method on march 2013.
I am sorry, but I did not know about that until recently. I hope that new method can be added to the project.

I hope so too as flatfly has done a lot for electrum in the past years.

[foodies123]

I know this is an odd request but we've managed to build an electrum server for myriad (multi-pow 5 concurrent algorythms sha scrypt skein groestl and qubit) but we're having trouble building a windows client ... could any of you fine gentlemen offer us a hand ? We'd appreciate it greatly.