I don't know whether my concerns are well founded.
I don't find your concerns to be well founded.
The difference is that my approach has a builtin fail safe and is done in accordance with the upstream best practices.
What built in "fail safe? What "up stream best practices"?
I'm concerned that you keep coming up with weird reasons we can't use my code, but you won't test those reasons.
Its not like I changed 900 lines of code, added 67 lines with 3 new functions etc. I just tweaked a widely accepted coin (litecoin) wallet to work with our coin.
I'm concerned you're just throwing out hypotheticals about what could go wrong and claiming that means we should scrap everything without even verifying if your concerns are relevant.
DNP raised a point I can't dismiss; he was concerned there wasn't enough time for testing. Fine, fair enough, that's something we can talk about. But you just suggest we should scrap everything and that doesn't make any sense.
I tried for months to get someone to code for this wallet, DaveF tried a lot longer than I did. Most coders want hundreds of dollars up front and will charge upwards of a couple thousand dollars by the time they're done. But no one in this community was willing to pay (sans those who may have paid already). Finally, I started working on it (without compensation) and after months of testing and troubleshooting and coding it, I finally did it. Now you're saying we should scrap the thing we've been waiting for for upwards of a couple of years without even testing it because something you're afraid of "might" go wrong? I find fault with your logic.