< MarcoFalke>
It also runs the test on the hardware
< MarcoFalke>
And I don't have that hardware
< fanquake>
dongcarl cool. fwiw I was seeing "Throw to key `encoding-error' with args `("scm_to_stringn" "cannot convert wide string to output locale" 84 #f #f)'." when installing 6w65nzbc3ah30y5kr4zx9rcgknpjr1f5-nss-certs-3.43
< tryphe>
luke-jr, yeah, i prefer just "generate address" but that's me. a "receive address" might create the concept of a "sending address" in people's minds which could cause some confusion.
< luke-jr>
normal people associate "address" with things not related to Bitcoin addresses, so I'd prefer to avoid the term altogether
< luke-jr>
(eg, normally you would expect you can reuse an address..)
< tryphe>
yeah, normally you would send to an address multiple times no problem with a paper mail system, which you can't have the same assumptions for here
< luke-jr>
same for email addresses, website addresses, etc
< luke-jr>
IMO "Request payment" was good :P
< tryphe>
i like the idea of "my addresses" vs. "other people's addresses" but i'm not sure if "send" and "receive" is the right language to use.
< booyah>
well you can send to same address in btc ofc
< booyah>
maybe /instead/ just always remind people to avoid reusing addresses for security
< tryphe>
i think having an "address book" is inherently bad for multiple reasons. one is the obvious one that people will re-use addresses, but another is that wallet metadata can be changed in an unlocked wallet, so someone could change the address of an alias you intend to use in the future, even with the wallet locked.
< tryphe>
unlocked/locked* rather
< tryphe>
if i wanted to scam someone, i wouldn't even need to wait for them to unlock their wallet, i could just create a similar-ish looking vanity address
< tryphe>
assuming i had access to the wallet. but still, i think it creates a bad precedent where overconfidence in encryption/whatever else will encourage sloppy behavior.