From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UsfPs-0005Do-4U for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:37:12 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.44; envelope-from=billhees@gmail.com; helo=mail-qa0-f44.google.com; Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.216.44]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UsfPq-0005Wb-Al for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:37:12 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id o13so874890qaj.17 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:37:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.62.33 with SMTP id v1mr19071933qer.53.1372451824823; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.12.113 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:37:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1372353053.10405.140661249237317.77984E1F@webmail.messagingengine.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:37:04 -0700 Message-ID: From: Bill Hees To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f5036427d741d04e03cd7a0 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (billhees[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1UsfPq-0005Wb-Al Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: MultiBit as default desktop client on bitcoin.org X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:37:12 -0000 --e89a8f5036427d741d04e03cd7a0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 There are good, valid arguments in support of promoting both the reference client, Bitcoin-QT, and for offering a lighter-weight alternative. Why not outline these arguments on bitcoin.org and provide links to each; or even links to a variety of alternative wallet solutions alongside descriptions of their respective benefits and drawbacks? Is there an advantage to having a singular "recommended" client? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Bill Hees wrote: > There are good, valid arguments in support of promoting both the reference > client, Bitcoin-QT, and for offering a lighter-weight alternative. Why not > outline these arguments on bitcoin.org and provide links to each; or even > links to a variety of alternative wallet solutions alongside descriptions > of their respective benefits and drawbacks? Is there an advantage to having > a singular "recommended" client? > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > >> I vote "yes" to have MultiBit replace Bitcoin-Qt as the recommended >> desktop wallet app. I think most users will be happier with it. >> >> If I'm wrong, it is easy to change back. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: >> >> Build for Windows Store. >> >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > > --e89a8f5036427d741d04e03cd7a0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There are good, valid arguments in support of promotin= g both the reference client, Bitcoin-QT, and for offering a lighter-weight = alternative. Why not outline these arguments on bitcoin.org and provide links to each; or even links to a variety o= f alternative wallet solutions alongside descriptions of their respective b= enefits and drawbacks? Is there an advantage to having a singular "rec= ommended" client?


On Fri, Jun 2= 8, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Bill Hees <billhees@gmail.com> wrote:
There are good, valid arguments in support of promoting bo= th the reference client,=A0Bitcoin-QT, and for offering a lighter-weight al= ternative. Why not outline these arguments on bitcoin.org and provide links to each; or even link= s to a variety of alternative wallet solutions alongside descriptions of th= eir respective benefits and drawbacks? Is there an advantage to having a si= ngular "recommended" client?

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Gavin And= resen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
I vote "yes" to have MultiBit repl= ace Bitcoin-Qt as the recommended
desktop wallet app. I think most users will be happier with it.

If I'm wrong, it is easy to change back.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.= sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--e89a8f5036427d741d04e03cd7a0--