Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.174 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.174; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f174.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJDr-KhPdnNEuFAE325OUEa42ukJ_9yXcS8sJ+Y_w9LWyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T3DM72+8HgNWWZ2HaAgZMQGAPn87L9VVKdkbVkS7sd8Tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJDr-KhPdnNEuFAE325OUEa42ukJ_9yXcS8sJ+Y_w9LWyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:56:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjTP5++MTAKZCqsuF_pnKz1QOo__dzZRtJ0_aBr9xuT6g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Version 0.9 goals
Precedence: list

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Wladimir <laanwj@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