New bitcoin.org Clients page

[istar]

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.

[1714901277]

1714901277

[1714901277]

1714901277

[Boussac]

FWIW, here is a picture of my original suggestion, that should IMO still be open for voting on:

Why is Paytunia 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).

[genjix]

OK, I'll try to respond to comments

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"

Done.

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!!

The front page recommends Bitcoin-Qt and offers it as download (like currently on bitcoin.org).

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.

This is FUD. Electrum relies on libbitcoin which is BIP16 compliant and handles blockchain reorgs fine. Armory depends on bitcoind. MultiBit is based on BitCoinJ which is well tested in many clients and more than 1 year old.

FWIW, here is a picture of my original suggestion, 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.

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

Yeah, I agree with this. Also it's too restrictive a format for projects. There's no meaningful way to compare them really. I think name, pic, website, description is best.

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

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.

Descriptions aren't final. They are just temporary place-holders. People would submit their own after. This is just pedantry.

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

Redundant.

Great!

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

Changed this to 'Bitcoin Client Software'

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"

http://bittorrent.org/

I'm strongly against terms like "official" and prefer "recommended". Who designates the designations. It is against the spirit of a decentralised software to have terms like "official".

If you're worried about usability then figure that most new users are not downloading a client but using services like InstaWallet or an actual wallet website.

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.

FWIW, here is a picture of my original suggestion, that should IMO still be open for voting on:

Why is Paytunia 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.

[minimalB]

Please make frontpage as simple as possible and as nongeeky as possible, without many options...

Maybe "MORE>>>" link should then go more into detail and provide additional options...

My mom always get scared if there is too much to choose from on the frontpage screen...

[ThomasV]

IMO the proposal by luke would better go on the wiki

[Boussac]

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)).

[genjix]

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)).

Sure, can you give me a 250x200 picture, a 400 char max description and the website? Please keep the description neutral sounding and focused. I didn't put it because I don't own a phone and haven't tried Paytunia nor kept up with mobile developments Not because of any political thing.

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?

[Tuxavant]

I guess it's already been decided, but I'm still going to voice my opinion for prefering Luke-jr's suggestion.

Its very easy contemplate each client's pros and cons. I don't think it's in a new bitcoiner's best interest to blindly follow recommendations. It's a complex topic with some very real financial implications if they just grab something and jump in the water without thinking about things. Having them actually think about things before they get involved is probably the best path.

A noob blindly following a recommendation to install a full blockchain client and later finding out his computer's resources aren't really compatible and having to reconsider is not the best situation. (I'm thinking specifically about third world adopters, with crappy computers or networks, that may soon be picking this up). If they were made to think about it before hand, by seeing all the different client properties relative to each other, perhaps it might make their adoption a more comfortable experience.

[casascius]

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.)

[Luke-Jr]

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). I agree it should keep a "default" status (on the front page) for now since it is the only functioning full node, but in the long run, I hope that changes.

[casascius]

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?  Many of the intricacies and nuances of the Bitcoin protocol are not documented save by reference to the bitcoind code.  If the undocumented portions of the bitcoin protocol are defined not by this or any particular client as you suggest, but by the behavior of whatever happens to be the most popular client at the time, then we're in for a treat when someone creates a transaction that points out some unexpected difference, causing users of some client (such as bitcoin-QT) to suddenly create their own blockchain fork.

[Luke-Jr]

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

It is the same client, just not the same developers.

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

The latter.

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?

Then the more popular client wins, and the less popular ones need to correct their implementation to match it.

[Boussac]

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

Thanks for the offer to contribute to Bitcoinmedia : I will follow up on that asap.

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

Our mobile developments are not open sourced until we close our second round of financing: this is a topic we want to keep open with investors we are talking to.

Paytunia mobile is a thin client. The keys are not stored on the mobile device but on the backend (paytunia.com) server.
My experience trying to use embedded keys (stored on a mobile device) taught me that the user experience is better with a true thin client (no keys stored on mobile).
Anyhow, both options (hosted keys or embedded keys) have their pros and cons but none can be said far superior to the other: we will let the market decide.

[Mike Hearn]

Thanks Amir and Luke for making this happen. I totally agree this is an important step for the project. AsI said on Lukes pull-req, I prefer the simpler approach so thanks for implementing it. I like the box-based layout, as columns are indeed easier to read and it implies less ordering.

The key part is really the language used. We should try and approach this as a software company would - aggressively eliminate jargon and try and make things as end-user friendly as possible. The current text provided by Amir is better than the grid, but it's still quite developer oriented and discusses details that only programmers care about.

I'm not a developer of any of these clients, except indirectly MultiBit, but here's how I'd rephrase the text. I'm not suggesting my explanations are 100% correct but I think they focus on how end users might perceive them, and it avoids jargon like "frontends" and "blockchain".

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.

There are still some things worth thinking about:

• 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".
• Not every client supports every OS, so it might make sense to have an OS picker at the start to avoid showing users clients that might sound good, but won't run on their machines. I almost didn't see the tiny icons at the bottom.
• Ordering: above I put MultiBit after Bitcoin-Qt. The reason is that despite its flaws (most of which are in any case my fault), it is the most professional and approachable client, IMHO. It runs on every OS, is translated into other languages, does not have any unexpectedly huge resource requirements and Jim has a sharp focus on the average user. Eg, he prioritized an exchange rate ticker and localization over some of the more interesting wallet features. This does not mean I think other clients are "worse", just that most users who end up at this page will be individuals who want to receive and send a few coins and we should ensure they are catered to first.

I have tried to present a fair and balanced view of each client. Nevertheless, everyone will want to position their apps in the best possible light. For example, I have described Electrum here as "suitable for people with a reasonably high level of technical ability". The reason is that its website is clearly designed for programmers. The install instructions for the worlds most common OS list how to install Python and its dependencies first, with an actual installer left to some random guy in a forum thread. MultiBit on the other hand has standard installers for all 3 main platforms right on its home page, provided by the core developers. Despite that, as I said, there are still occasional bugs and performance quirks with anything based on bitcoinj (and who knows, maybe other clients too, I haven't used them).

I think we should all be conservative about our own code. BitCoinJ based clients do basically work but there are edge cases where the protocol is not properly implemented, eg, if you pay yourself directly from a coinbase transaction, that currently won't appear (being fixed now). I would be hesitant recommending any client to my mother today because IMHO none of them have the right combination of bulletproof maturity, high performance and dedication to ease of use that would be required. I hope MultiBit will get there first, but I think Electrum could probably also do a good job if it had more of an non-technical user focus.

[ThomasV]

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.

[genjix]

Thanks Mike, I updated the page with your descriptions. Although I do agree that the Electrum text is inaccurate - it's not user friendly *yet*, not because its core focus is technical people. I did move MultiBit first because your reasons were solid. I can agree that Electrum has a problem with distribution (no packages, difficult/obscure install instructions for most, random win32 builds from forum). Armory is not much better in that regards, so I used a coinflip to select their order

If anyone wants to test, then add this to your hosts file:

176.31.24.241    bitcoin.org

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.

For all the complaining about centralisation on this forum, people sure seem to be fighting my efforts to promote alternative clients, to avoid promoting a strong exchange competitor by continuing to trade on MtGox and to avoid getting involved with development (bitcoin library with Python bindings is out there). We should not be pushing something because it is simply the path of least resistance, but instead pushing the hard path which is more rewarding and satisfying in the long run - a truly decentralised cryptocurrency which is free from control and corruption.

This is the end goal of bitcoin.org:

http://bittorrent.org/

BitTorrent is what I would call a decentralised piece of software driven by merit. The BitTorrent client marketplace is highly competitive and diverse.

Here's the front page:



Clients page:

[Mike Hearn]

Looks good to me, thanks!

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

[HostFat]

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

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

[Tuxavant]

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".

+.1 What about "Satoshi Classic"?

[HostFat]

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

Anyway you can add it as surname, ex:
Bitcoin client
( Satoshi client )

As I already said I also like to have a 'comparison' page