1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1V9vEG-0000uu-Ex
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:56:32 +0000
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;
Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1V9vEE-0004wD-N6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:56:32 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w15so924746iea.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.114.105 with SMTP id jf9mr1386136igb.12.1376564185439;
Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.73.74 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
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
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1V9vEE-0004wD-N6
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Version 0.9 goals
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:56:32 -0000
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
|