Since my comment has been erased from the online edition of the magazine, I have no other choice but to post here about the "newbies" review of wallet options.
One again, I am writing this because the reviewer is using the name of the service my colleagues and I have decided to offer to the bitcoin community for free, namely instawallet, as title to his review.
He is citing as "disadvantages" the following:
"You have to trust the provider not to be careless or malicious" Isn't it true of just ANY third party provider ?
When I am using the bitcoin client I am trusting the developers to be not malicious nor careless.
It's an OPTION offered to everyone, not an obligation nor a "disadvantage", unless you ASSUME the provider to be careless, which in our case is totally unjustified
.
A review is not supposed to qualify as "disadvantages", options that are offered to users.
Otherwise, he could just by the same logic qualify as a "disadvantage" the option to control one's own keys because EVERYBODY can be careless at times in handling them.
I have no idea why your comment was deleted if it indeed was, because commenting on the article page is the
correct way to dispute issues with an article and its contents. It allows not only the author of the article but the community to know the truth and allows everyone to react accordingly with the correct information.
That said, I am not entirely sure what you are arguing here, although I understand if your comment was removed for some reason that you would want to voice your opinion in this thread. Can you create another thread of discussion about this and post the link here? I would also like to get to the bottom of this and most importantly I would like to find out what exactly it is you're talking about.
EDIT:
[8:21:53 PM] Vitalik Buterin: [...] changed to "You have to trust the provider not to be careless or malicious to a much greater extent than any other solution, since no one can audit any code and the provider (or someone hacking the provider) can potentially decide to run away with everyone’s funds at a moment’s notice"
EDIT 2: Apparently the article had to be reformatted at one point (probably due to the translations we are adding) and it caused all comments to be removed (not just yours).
