markmhendrickson
commented
1 year ago Primary concerns: Why do some of these have a QR button, some have a Copy button, and some both? Both options should be available for all types of address.
We've removed the copy option from Bitcoin so we can show a warning on the QR page re: not depositing ordinals. But I agree, we should find a way to put it back for convenience.
I also agree the QR code option should show for ordinals and Stacks NFTs.
Secondary concerns: Why is the STX address duplicated, one without a QR? This has potential to increase rather than reduce confusion. (By the way, did you know that the 'T' in 'NFT' stands for 'Token'? FT and NFT are all "Tokens".)
I imagine it could confuse, though we may have to see. The idea here is that the wallet now has two paths generally for FTs vs NFTs given the current intricacies of our ordinals support, so we wanted to bifurcate the experience. But as we build out feature parity for both, we could end up collapsing into one path again.
The Bitcoin address might be simplified to just taproot, since technically isn't any reason why inscribed and uninscribed sats need to be kept separate, assuming the wallet knows not to spend inscribed sats.
We may indeed want to do this once we have coin control in place for both Taproot and Native SegWit addresses. Right now if the user were to deposit inscriptions into the Native SegWit address, they could end up losing them upon sending BTC.
Furthermore, shouldn't legacy addresses still be supported for better compatibility?
We're assessing how much demand there is for legacy addresses and will add if it's significant.
badonyx
pete-watters
Primary concerns: Why do some of these have a QR button, some have a Copy button, and some both? Both options should be available for all types of address.
Secondary concerns: Why is the STX address duplicated, one without a QR? This has potential to increase rather than reduce confusion. (By the way, did you know that the 'T' in 'NFT' stands for 'Token'? FT and NFT are all "Tokens".)
A sensible iteration on this might simplify to 3 (or 2) options, with STX shown first (once), and Bitcoin addresses shown next. The Bitcoin address might be simplified to just taproot, since technically isn't any reason why inscribed and uninscribed sats need to be kept separate, assuming the wallet knows not to spend inscribed sats.
Furthermore, shouldn't legacy addresses still be supported for better compatibility? Legacy 1xyz/3xyz and native segwit bc1qxyz could all be hidden under some "advanced" option or something.