Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-08-15 📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-08-15
📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Fully agreed about payment protocol, autotools and Qt5 build.
>
> I'm still not very excited about coin control (and last time I looked at the
> code, it has an issue that it introduced statefulness into the wallet model
> - a bane for concurrency. But that may be resolved?) . Anyway, many people
> seem to want that so it's fine with me, given that the issues are fixed.
As far as I can see, that state is gone, and is now passed in a
separate object to the transaction-creation methods.
I'd like to see it go in, as I believe it can be helpful in
understanding the difference between the high-level abstraction
(wallet) and the underlying implementation (individual coins) -
something that many people are confused about. I think that's even a
more important advantage than the ability for micro-management it
offers. Multiwallet would be more appropriate for avoiding linkage
between identities, but it seems there's little progress on that front
now.
--
Pieter
Published at
2023-06-07 15:05:57Event JSON
{
"id": "c281ec984eec70c65955b9d4cdf42bb75558201f655da57c1e7b5ff1128b438e",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686150357,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"16b0b3d093d3a082b4a61ae828e9ba30a8cab43b8fbd091391c9e49588991dc7",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"03eccf6350cd72dd942b235425abc5f783b19e4586243390a17c1aee1f7aa7e8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-08-15\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Wladimir \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Fully agreed about payment protocol, autotools and Qt5 build.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm still not very excited about coin control (and last time I looked at the\n\u003e code, it has an issue that it introduced statefulness into the wallet model\n\u003e - a bane for concurrency. But that may be resolved?) . Anyway, many people\n\u003e seem to want that so it's fine with me, given that the issues are fixed.\n\nAs far as I can see, that state is gone, and is now passed in a\nseparate object to the transaction-creation methods.\n\nI'd like to see it go in, as I believe it can be helpful in\nunderstanding the difference between the high-level abstraction\n(wallet) and the underlying implementation (individual coins) -\nsomething that many people are confused about. I think that's even a\nmore important advantage than the ability for micro-management it\noffers. Multiwallet would be more appropriate for avoiding linkage\nbetween identities, but it seems there's little progress on that front\nnow.\n\n-- \nPieter",
"sig": "15152eaa0a47248373349ab4f334ae45a95697a7bc62eaa46b74e05c07b9d0acd77fb915142c50629363980d6cb5151b69d9d289c8cff5ee84d5a0eed2438de5"
}