search

bitcoincashorg / spec

Technical specifications
112 stars 64 forks source link

Added reversion procedure #58

Closed priestc closed 6 years ago

deadalnix commented 6 years ago

No.

priestc commented 6 years ago

Can you provide any more feedback other than just one word? The original proposal didn't explicitly mention the temporary nature of Cashaddr, so I decided to improve the proposal by clarifying and providing guidance on how that process should be handled.

Also, since there are other people involved with ABC development, don't you think it would be better to leave the PR open for more than 2 hours to allow your colleagues to chime in on this issue. Closing it after only 2 hours of being open is censorship adjacent.

avl42 commented 6 years ago

The original proposal didn't explicitly mention the temporary nature of Cashaddr,

What made you even think it being just temporary, then?

schancel commented 6 years ago

The content of this post is predicated on the assumption that @priestc is the same person as /u/freework on reddit.

@priestc We're in the middle of doing other things and you decide to waste everyone's time with this? CashAddr is already voluntary. When you start making positive contributions instead of finding fault with everything Bitcoin Cash developers do, we'll start taking you seriously. If things were left to you, Bitcoin Cash wouldn't even exist -- you've done nothing but nip at other people's heels. If you're such a great developer as you claim, why don't you start contributing to BU or XT?

priestc commented 6 years ago

Making a specification more explicit, is a positive contribution. Explaining why something is stupid is also a positive contribution. I'm not against everything Cash developers do, just the things that are bad. Cashaddr just so happens to be the worst thing you guys have ever done, so I'm going to concentrate my efforts into trying to stop it.

If you're such a great developer as you claim,

I've never claimed this.

why don't you start contributing to BU or XT?

This PR is a contribution. As far as contributing code, I don't think any more code is needed for Bitcoin, other than the occasional blocksize increase, when needed. Nearly 100% of the code both BU and ABC are "contributing" these days are unnecessary, (as well as nearly 100% of code that comes out of the other high market cap currency that calls itself Bitcoin...)

Bitcoin doesn't need any more development, what it needs is more people trying to stop development.

Pheromon commented 6 years ago

Cashaddr just so happens to be the worst thing you guys have ever done

Bitcoin Cash addresses are awesome, I can't understand how could you say something like that. Maybe you was not able to implement them?

priestc commented 6 years ago

Bitcoin Cash addresses are awesome, I can't understand how could you say something like that.

Any change to the bitcoin protocol is bad until proven not bad. No one yet has been able to convince me why cashaddr isn't bad.

Imagine if someone proposed a change to the SMTP protocol that would break all existing email clients, and the change made it easier to print out emails on a printer. Many people would think that proposal is dumb because you aren't supposed to print out emails. You aren't supposed to manually type in addresses either, yet cashaddr is a proposal that people for some reason support even though it will make older wallets not able to send to new users unless new users go into their settings and disable cashaddr. Thats more confusing for a new user than BCH having a similar format as another currency.

Pheromon commented 6 years ago

Any change to the bitcoin protocol is bad until proven not bad. No one yet has been able to convince me why cashaddr isn't bad

Maybe you didn't realize that the new addressing scheme does NOT change the protocol at all: it's just a different and better representation for human interaction.

avl42 commented 6 years ago

@Pheromon I think the OP was talking about the "human" protocol: that of telling someone one's address and getting a "Huh, my app doesn't accept that... it seems to expect something that starts with 1 or 3, not with a 'q' "-reply.

Those apps are eventually going to be replaced by a newer versions of that app, or by other (less-abandoned) apps. And those who can't ever update are still stuck with "bitcoin-core 0.1", anyway, so don't really matter here...

imho.

Pheromon commented 6 years ago

if that was the problem, he could have commented on a pull request ending the usage of old format (and there is none, if I'm not mistaken?).

So, until the old, obsolete scheming address is supported, I see zero reasons to disable the new improved format.

As you sau, in time the old one will be abandoned, at least I hope.

avl42 commented 6 years ago

Yes, for some time we might have this dialog: "What's your address?" - "q..." - "Umm... huh? 1... or 3...?" - clicking something, then "1..." - "ok"

It's the potential necessity of the clicking something that the OP seems to worry about, but it is only temporary, anyway, because after a while the dialog becomes: "What's your address?" - "q..." - "ok".

...maybe followed by "Haha, do you remember the times when you had to say 'one, uppercase q, lowercase q, uppercase x, ...' ?" - "lol".

avl42 commented 6 years ago

PS: I don't expect the old format to be removed any time foreseeable. I guess some people with vanity addresses for donations or services will prefer to use them for some longer time...