s7r:
> I have reviewed the branch - very nice work; plain and simple. From my
> point of view it's perfect, explicit and also in reasonable length.
Cool, I'm glad you both like it!
> I just have one single addition to make sure we avoid confusion and
> panic among the less techy users. Only if
Michael English:
> Yes, waiting for block confirmations is an easier way to protect against
> an out-of-date bitcoin balance than manually connecting to a trusted
> onion server. I still hold my opinion that the Electrum networking
> settings are the best way to protect against DoS, but it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello
I have reviewed the branch - very nice work; plain and simple. From my
point of view it's perfect, explicit and also in reasonable length.
I just have one single addition to make sure we avoid confusion and
panic among the less techy users.
I worked on an update to the current documentation in branch
doc/9713-electrum-2.5. I tried to combined everybody's input while
sticking to the minimum as per our guidelines.
I'm sorry I won't reply inline to the different topics raised in this
thread, but here is a summary:
1. Give more
Yes, waiting for block confirmations is an easier way to protect against
an out-of-date bitcoin balance than manually connecting to a trusted
onion server. I still hold my opinion that the Electrum networking
settings are the best way to protect against DoS, but it unnecessarily
complicated for
Michael English:
> My main goal with the documentation is informing users of the
> vulnerabilities of Electrum in Tails to promote secure practices.
Hi Michael, thanks a lot for moving this forward. I'm swamped with tons
of other things right now, and since the upgrade to 2.5.x is still a
work in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/5/2015 6:30 PM, Michael English wrote:
> My main goal with the documentation is informing users of the
> vulnerabilities of Electrum in Tails to promote secure practices.
>
> I don't think that Bitcoin should be installed in Tails in the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/5/2015 10:38 PM, Michael English wrote:
> You have thoroughly criticized my documentation to help users
> secure Electrum in Tails. I ask you again what would you change in
> the current documentation where it warns about SPV. Would you
>
Sajolida,
s7r thinks that the SPV documentation that I wrote earlier should not be
changed. You had stated at one point that you did not want to document
the change of default base unit. Could you state your current opinions
based on the conversation so far? Perhaps you could add the small
s7r,
Please see my replies that follow.
>> The main debate is over the DoS documentation. This is a good
>> summary by anonym of a worst case scenario: “Thanks to SPV, the
>> server can spoof the wallet balance. Hence the server operator can
>> scam Tails users, e.g. s/he can buy stuff from a
My main goal with the documentation is informing users of the
vulnerabilities of Electrum in Tails to promote secure practices.
I don't think that Bitcoin should be installed in Tails in the first
place for the following reasons:
Bitcoin is unstable software/protocol
Tails runs off of memory
We
You have thoroughly criticized my documentation to help users secure
Electrum in Tails. I ask you again what would you change in the current
documentation where it warns about SPV. Would you remove it entirely,
replace it, or add something on to the end? What specific wording would
you use?
s7r:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/24/2015 9:00 PM, Michael English wrote:
> Sajolida:
>
> “If I understand correctly, the main issue here is about the
> *change* (and not about the behavior itself), then this should be
> mentioned most of all in the release notes. If you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Sajolida, Michael,
See inline.
On 11/22/2015 2:00 PM, sajolida wrote:
> Michael English:
>> Sajolida, please forward this message to s7r.
>
> Done.
>
Thanks!
>> s7r,
>>
>> If you do not have any specific ideas for updating the Electrum
Sajolida:
“If I understand correctly, the main issue here is about the *change*
(and not about the behavior itself), then this should be mentioned most
of all in the release notes. If you think that the behavior itself might
be confusing, then I guess that this should be solved upstream (in their
Michael English:
> Sajolida, please forward this message to s7r.
Done.
> s7r,
>
> If you do not have any specific ideas for updating the Electrum
> documentation, I volunteer to take the lead. Otherwise, you can draft an
> updated version of the documentation and I can update where necessary.
>
Sajolida, please forward this message to s7r.
s7r,
If you do not have any specific ideas for updating the Electrum
documentation, I volunteer to take the lead. Otherwise, you can draft an
updated version of the documentation and I can update where necessary.
The goal is to document Electrum
Michael English:
> Please see https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/9713 for context.
>
> Recommend users to manually select a trusted .onion server to protect
> against DoS after note about SPV vulnerability.
>
> Make a note that Electrum uses mBTC as the default base unit. 1 mBTC =
> 0.001 BTC.
Please see https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/9713 for context.
Recommend users to manually select a trusted .onion server to protect
against DoS after note about SPV vulnerability.
Make a note that Electrum uses mBTC as the default base unit. 1 mBTC =
0.001 BTC. It can be changed in
19 matches
Mail list logo
