Quote from: FreeMoney on August 02, 2010, 07:01:39 PM

Quote from: throughput on August 02, 2010, 05:42:54 PM

Everyone is free to read my posts and discover, that I'm arguing, that the majority of people should be better
protected from being compromised. And that the authors of the Bitcoin should get concerned by
that security risk.

No you aren't. Unless I misunderstand you want a minority of honest users to be able to stop a majority of thieving botneters. The system as it is right now protects the majority, you are advocating ending that.

How's that?
Can you elaborate on that?
Whatever your intentions are, nobody is forced to accept my point of view here.
Nobody is either forced to know or understand it. So, ofcourse, you don't have to understand me.

The system as it is right now FORCES the majority, NOT you, to download precompiled executables from sourceforge.net download page.
I can imagine that as a kind of protection for them, but only if all the links in the chain from the source code store through the build node to the download page are as protected, as international banks payment systems are.
The protection you talk about is in effect only in the case when the files, that are downloaded in binary form are not
hiddenly patched by a third parties for whatever reasons.

I want, that a majority of honest nodes will never become thieving botneters behind their backs, without ever knowing that.
Some here just said, that is impossible to stop, I say NO, that is not true, you just need to diversify software delivery channels for the end users.
That risk exists even for GNU/Linux distributions, but it is small, since it is thoroughly mitigated, and compared to Bitcoin, Linux does not depend on the majority of nodes to be honest to survive.
So, everybody is free to take the best practices of Open Source software management, everybody is free to ignore them either.

You may also argue, that I'm pursuing my own evil interests here, I'm just waiting when you say that.
I won't be surprised, promise.