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. Only if you are fine with this
addition also, it's not something critical (maybe I'm just trying to
be too explicit).
Replace:
+<p>Do not blindly trust the bitcoin balance that <span
class="application">Electrum</span> displays.
+Wait for transactions to be confirmed.</p>
With:
+<p>Do not blindly trust the bitcoin balance that <span
class="application">Electrum</span> displays as *unconfirmed*.
+Wait for transactions to be confirmed.</p>
Thanks for taking care of this sajolida and happy I could help in
getting Electrum tuned upstream to work better in Tails.
On 12/21/2015 12:27 PM, sajolida wrote:
> 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 emphasis on external backup of the seed in addition
> to using persistence, as suggested by s7r. 2. Apply the grammar
> fixes and phrasings suggested by Michael. 3. Make the warning about
> SPV less scary and more useful by focusing on transaction
> confirmation. I was quite convinced by the details provided by s7r
> but tell me if I misinterpreted something. 4. Add a tip about
> mBTC.
>
> I didn't include s7r's suggestion to explain better what an
> Electrum server is, what it can do and what it cannot do. I think
> this is out of the scope in the Tails doc, while it clearly fits
> better in the upstream doc. I understand that some of your points
> were specific to Tails, but still, I think we found a configuration
> in Tails that doesn't make the security discussion radically
> different than outside of Tails (which was the goal). If we think
> this discussion about the Tails context is worth been written
> somewhere it should be done in our design documentation. But
> honestly, I feel very lazy to do this and I'm not sure it's worth
> it.
>
> Tell me what you think or if I missed anything. And thanks for
> your patience and for doing the research and discussion without
> me.
>
