Topic: Best independent client? - page 2. (Read 3654 times)

What I meant was that you can run bitcoind now and if/when changes are made later you would just not upgrade and, if needed, instead support work on some fork that you would use for any upgrades you wanted. The main thing is that a future preferred version probably still depends on the current version.

So the way you would "stage" this is to create a fork now called the non-foundation fork and then build your bitcoind from that. It would be the same thing now but you would already have a fork that is untouchable by the foundation and which could be shared to and used by another group for going in a different direction.

Not a proble yet. Call me paranoid _{or just very experienced with politics, money and its influence on projects}, but the whole setup of the foundation-gang seems such that it is unavoidable that parties will influence the developers of bitcoind in way that benefits thém more than the bitcoin community as a whole. We need to have independent alternative clients. Fully independent.


That would be an awesome move and I think it'd be my client of choice.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe all clients still depend on bitcoind. That is, the essential part of verifying and storing the blockchain and communicating with other clients is still handled in all clients by this one backend codebase. I may be wrong here as I have not checked all the clients myself.

I do know that you would probably like Electrum as a light weight replacement for Bitcoin Qt but it does communicate with an Electrum server which still depends on BitcoinAbe and Bitcoind. It does have the advantage that the python code is fairly easy to browse and understand and not that long. It is managed on github as well so seeing change history is easy.

I don't think that running bitcoind is a problem but I would like to see a new verifying (preferably lightweight, pruning) bitcoin client written from scratch. I would do it but first I'd have to fully understand the current client - and I do not. I've been loathe to spend the time to fully read and understand the satoshi client code.

Instead I have been working on adding nice bits to Electrum. I would like to create an Electrum server that ran independent of bitcoind and BitcoinAbe. That's a pretty big job so I'm not about to start without much prep.

That is actually worth a consideration as well. Maybe this is the time for a "bitcoin 2.0", since bitcoin 1.0 is becoming corrupted. (Yes, bold statement, but I truly think that this "foundation" has brought bitcoin closer to the traditional systems, and not in a good way.)

Not sure if litecoin would be my choice, but I'll look into alternative coins while I consider an alternative client too.

The bitcoin foundation has no say at all in litecoin 

That's a good thing and proves why an alternative coin is needed.

For a network based protocol such as Bitcoin it is practically impossible for a client to be totally independent from the main software that is running the network backbone (i.e bitcoind).

i.e. Think back to the change made to the protocol on 20Feb2012. If you did not update your client software as a result of the change you could no longer talk to the network.

For MultiBit I have signed up for a lifetime membership to the Bitcoin Foundation however this does not mean I have given up any control over the MultiBit software. The people with commit access to the github code are myself, Gary Rowe, Tim Molter and Jonny Heggheim only. (Gary is also a Bitcoin Foundation member).

Also, MultiBit relies heavily on bitcoinj, XChange and XChart you would have to track the committers of those project too.


I personally think the Bitcoin Foundation is a good idea but I respect your viewpoint.

The good thing with open source code is that you can see all of the commits going into code - it is normally pretty clear what is going on. Opaque, uncommented code only comes back and bite you so developers hate it.

If you think of the phrase "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" maybe what you should think of doing is codifying exactly what you mean by independence i.e what you expect developers to do and publish it. Make it a gold standard for what you want bitcoin software to do.

For instance, you might say:

"All unencrypted private keys should only ever be available to the installer of the software (i.e. no backdoors)."

That gives a definite measure that you can monitor any available software on. It either does it or does not, no ifs and buts.


A lot of things in Bitcoin are reputation based and you are right to be wary of anyone saying "Trust me". The good thing is that you have the tools to see what other people are doing, check that they meet any standards you publish and then give a "quality standards mark".

You might get to the position where you have a website where you declare:

"MultiBit (version x.y.z) with SHA256 hash of AParticularHash value is The_Duke approved for:
   no backdoors
   no lurking trojans
  
 however it fails on:
   no TOR support
   help files access a remote server (multibit.org) hence your IP address is logged when you access help"

OTHER people can then base their trust decisions on what you say.  Of course you need to build up a reputation backed with evidence that you are not under the influence of the Bitcoin Foundation but that is a separate issue.

Thanks!
Good place to start, but doesn't offer the answer to my most important reason for wanting an alternative client (see below).


I want more or less the same functionality as the original client, although a nicer GUI would be a bonus.
But much more important to me: I want as much guarantee as possible (I know there's never a 100% guarantee) that it will be made by (a) developer(s) who is/are completely independent (and if possible uninfluenced by) from the bitcoin foundation.

Flatfly created a nice little list of alternative clients on this website. I think it should be pretty up-to-date.

Think about what you want in a client and try them out.

Now that the so-called "bitcoin foundation" is grabbing power over bitcoin, I'd like to move away from the satoshi client. (Which we should stop calling satoshi client, because satoshi has nothing to with that anymore and his concept is getting raped)

Which is the best client that is guaranteed to be independent from the bitcoin foundation? Basically I would like to "vote" against the foundation by picking an alternative client that is not under its control.