Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: sendtoaddress sendmany api change proposal.
by
btc4ever
on 02/10/2014, 06:03:42 UTC
Hi 2112.  You haven't yet said a single thing that demonstrates a technical flaw in my proposal.  You also have not proposed something better or indeed anything at all.

If my proposal is "wrong" as you say, please support that statement by providing a scenario in which the outcome would not be as desired/expected by the API caller or otherwise somehow wrong/broken behavior. I doubt you can because the approach is very simple and straight-forward.  But I'm willing to consider anything concrete.  If you can point an actual flaw, then either I need to find a way to fix it, or the proposal is unworkable.  But you have not done this.

Also if you'd like to explain how the status quo is somehow better than my proposal, I'd also be mildly amused to read that justification, even though I'm sure I wouldn't agree.  Because the status quo is pretty broken with regards to fees.  It's like walking in to MoneyGram, handing them your credit card, asking them to send 10 cents for you, and please surprise me with the send fee.... the sky is the limit.  ( moneygram would probably say no to sending 10 cents, but bitcoin doesn't, so the analogy is apropriate. )

While I appreciate your contributing to the thread, I sense only negativity from you.   If you are done, that is probably just as well.

Does anyone else have comments?


Tomorrow I will consolidate the estimatesendfee addition into the original proposal for easier reading.