From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 ) 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 ; 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: References: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:56:25 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Wladimir 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:56:32 -0000 On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Wladimir 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