Update en.yml

[sunnankar]

Change title to call to action for why to run a full node. Refined the paragraph for conciseness and to explain the benefits of running a full node.

[saivann]

@sunnankar Perhaps we should say "Doing so requires more storage and bandwidth", so it's a little more explicit? Also, links shouldn't change, you can use <a href="#download#">full node. This way translated pages won't redirect to the english page.

Otherwise, LGTM

[sunnankar]

Added the storage and bandwidth change.

Left 'full Bitcoin client' text the same since it is as currently on the page but changed the link. Does it look how you wanted it?

[saivann]

@sunnankar Yes, the link should be working fine now.

Regarding the suggested title "Why you should be part of the Bitcoin network", I just previewed it and TBH, the previous one might be better because it was shorter and more consistent with other titles.

• Short titles look better on mobiles.
• Short titles are less likely to end up producing much longer titles in translations.
• Long titles are ignored more often than short titles :) .

[sunnankar]

Shortened the title but kept the 'why' since that evokes interest from the reader.

[wbnns]

@sunnankar Thanks for contributing today! I agree with @saivann and think the original title was fine. Also, I am all for calls to action, but if we look at the big picture here on this page, is this where the call to action is really needed and where we want to evoke interest - to be a part of the network? My vote would be to leave as-is or remove altogether (or perhaps move to the "Participate" page - https://bitcoin.org/en/support-bitcoin) since the main focus of the page is to shed light on choosing a wallet, not running a node.

[saivann]

@gwb3 We actually really need to promote full nodes as much as possible:
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04641.html

So currently we both promote them here and on the "Participate" page. As far as I'm concerned, I think the main benefit of the suggested @sunnankar change is that it promotes advantages of running a full node, so people are more incentivized and not just running nodes to help the network.

[saivann]

@sunnankar Your last title suggestion or the previous title both LGTM

[sunnankar]

The current paragraph only invites participation but does not focus on any benefits for the user to do so. We should highlight the reasons for running a full node and some of the risks of using other options.

Asking a question, generally, increase click through rates because they are more engaging. While we are not looking to increase click throughs nevertheless we are looking to engage the reader to continue reading the paragraph.

It is important for new users to be aware that participating with running a full node can increase their privacy. This is accomplished by being able to check their balances without disclosing the public key to a third party (who could be malicious or data mining for that purpose).

Strengthening the Bitcoin network and increasing one's privacy to protect against potentially malicious data mining are two factors new users should be apprised of when choosing their wallet. Thus, they are aware that they may need to 'graduate' from their beginner wallets to more private, secure and safer tools.

[saivann]

In the absence of additional feedback, this pull request will be merged on April 22th.

[wbnns]

Thank you both for elaborating on this and shedding additional light on the context of running a full node. Again, the only point of contention I would make here is that from a user experience and goal-oriented perspective, this page is about Choosing a wallet. I believe we should be rallying around that point.

The whole subject of incentivizing a user to be part of the network and run a full node in the middle of this content could potentially be counter-intuitive and overwhelming to a person who has little familiarity w/ Bitcoin and is here on this page potentially choosing a wallet and or learning about one for the first time - Do I need to be part of the network to choose a wallet? Is a wallet a full Bitcoin client?

Perhaps a compromise here would be adding a sentence at the very beginning of the section notating that this is not a required step in choosing a wallet.

[saivann]

@gwb3 I think you make a good point here; we actually don't even suggest a full node is a Bitcoin wallet here and that might be confusing. How about we use this:

You can choose between different kinds of lightweight wallets or a full Bitcoin client.
The later uses more storage and bandwidth and can take a day or longer to
synchronize. But there are benefits like increased privacy and security by not trusting
other network nodes. Running full nodes is essential to protecting the network by
checking and relaying transactions.

Additionally, this one is a little shorter and is less likely to overflow the available space when translated into other languages.

[sunnankar]

I like the idea of a sentence to explain the differences between lightweight and full node but it should probably be in a different pull request. The issue of lightweight wallets should probably be addressed in the 'Get started fast and easy' section. And while on that topic it appears MultiBit has had some issues:

http://www.bitcoinx.com/problems-surface-with-popular-wallet-client-multibit/
http://www.coindesk.com/multibit-user-loss-high-need-bitcoin-wallets/

Ultimately, we should probably do a better job of distinguishing the wallets based on usability, features, security, lightweight, full-node, cold storage, multi-signature, etc. but that will probably be quite the project.

[wbnns]

@saivann Thanks for following up, agreed, and I think this is much more clear! :)

@sunnankar I think it is important that we are clear that a full node is also a wallet in the PR.

[saivann]

OK, thanks for your feedback, let's push this version online (I'll take care of it in the next minutes).

@sunnankar Agreed on displaying each wallets attributes more transparently in the future. Regarding "Getting started fast and easy", it might soon make sense to drop this part, so probably better not to move texts here IMO. And current text is mostly your version with a different introduction more suited to the context of the page.