Quote from: paraipan on March 29, 2013, 04:28:16 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 29, 2013, 04:09:24 PM

The correct solution is to implement the sweep function, and make that easily accessible.

Ok, so ignoring smaller previous pull requests that could be the start of such feature is a solution? I remind you that Bitcoin is still beta software.

But it isn't the start of such a feature. It's the end. The start needs to come before the end.

Quote from: paraipan on March 29, 2013, 04:28:16 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 29, 2013, 04:09:24 PM

Quote from: paraipan on March 29, 2013, 03:11:25 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 29, 2013, 03:00:51 PM

Quote from: paraipan on March 29, 2013, 02:15:33 PM

"Add user interface to set dust limit and filtered addresses" - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2383

I agree this would be nice (in some form), but the filtering is inevitably a political move to try to force others to stop reusing addresses. While I think that may be necessary, it's arguable whether it belongs in the reference client.

Oh no, not again. The feature is there waiting for an approval that never comes. WTF?

I refuse to fork or join or split or whatever. The code is there waiting for what? Main developers mercy?

The point is that people are not supposed to be reusing addresses in the first place, which would make the filter useless.

You are granting people "main developers" status. Don't complain about authority you give people - if you don't like it, don't give them that authority.
But in the end, the decisions you're talking about here have reasons behind them.
Ignoring those reasons isn't the best idea.

Pardon me, but people have authority when things get done through them, or not? So if someone decides over a matter you imply they don't have any authority. I respect Gavin and team for this and because they reached there with allot of hard work and learning, but I don't agree with their "nanny" attitude towards bitcoiners. Hope I make myself understood and you don't beat the subject around the bush.

Nobody is deciding this for you, except yourself. If you choose to go with Gavin or someone else's decision, that is still your choice to do so. You can just as easily decide to ignore Gavin on this, and merge the branches yourself, as everyone has been trying to tell you.

Quote from: paraipan on March 29, 2013, 04:28:16 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 29, 2013, 04:09:24 PM

Quote from: paraipan on March 29, 2013, 03:42:14 PM

I enjoy only using Bitcoin-qt, this way my coins are safe and I help the network because other implementations aren't even considering this issue. People create features and submit them to Bitcoin mainstream client, where main developers actually get "free lunch" and only have to merge those. What you don't understand from that? They have a long record of not accepting even minor changes and leaving them rot on Github. This puts off people wanting to help or develop new features more every day.

As you probably understand main developers consolidate their position by doing this, assuring no one has any significant contribution towards the reference client, so we depend on them for whatever minor feature we need or want.

Yes, there is a problem with getting things merged. But this problem mostly comes down to testing.
You can "fix" it by skipping testing, or getting more people available to test. Only the latter is acceptable to Gavin, and for good reason.

Don't give me that "testing" crap, you know very well the same thing we're discussing here happened to you and many other people. Testing is non-issue when you've already tested all known cases. Unknown are to be discovered, just like the recent database fork that even Satoshi himself couldn't foresee.

Satoshi isn't a god. Testing is the main issue. One person testing is not sufficient, no matter what the change is.
Some of my oldest outstanding pull requests have had months of testing on Eligius and other pools now, but I can accept that they really need unit tests to truly prove themselves.