On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've reverted these additions to the page, nothing personal but—
Er, to be clear, I left the android software in because the source is available (And I'm told its had some review). I removed the proprietary software section the plug for the blockchain.info webservices, and the demotion of the armory client. As far as criteria goes, I don't think we should list anything with a security model weaker than SPV unless users can practically operate their own servers. …and even that I'm a little uneasy with, because most people will use the defaults. Ideally even thin clients would have a near SPV security model, just without the bandwidth. But since the alternative for thin clients is centralized web services the lower standard will probably have better net results for now. Nor do I think we should list anything which can't currently be subjected to independent review of the whole stack (e.g. including the server components in thinclients, unless the server is untrusted). In the future this should be raised to there existing actual evidence of third party review. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
