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.
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.
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'
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.
Not because of any political thing.
