I agree. But then again, some more robustness would be nice.
@Noruka:
AFAIK, such improvements are on the docket. Unfortunately, some of the issues have been tricky to reproduce in development environments, so it's been a difficult process to debug. But should be coming down the pipeline.
Not sure what other issues you are referring to, but the one where the wallet is fatally compromised if the computer is shutdown improperly or locks up is pretty easy to reproduce. I'm no programmer, but it seems to me this is the result of leaving files open that have been written to/modified, rather than only opening them for long enough to write/update then close them again.
Also, I am going to reiterate my earlier comments to this thread about the absolutely useless data reported in the Penrose triangle: even after reading the whitepaper I still have no idea what, "inputs weighing
x coin days," means; this bunch of gobblydegook that only a C programmer could love should be replaced with something like, "estimated daily* chance of receiving a block from staking: %"
Basically, as long as it is made clear that receiving a block from staking is a probabilistic event, and not something guaranteed to happen after
x days with
n coins, then there shouldn't be too much confusion. Frankly, arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand what you are offering never struck me as sound business (even if it is true...).
* - or weekly, monthly, etc...
Sorry, I was referring to a different bug--not the one you described.
And yes, that one should be more straightforward and it is being worked on AFAIK.
Your input about the wallet information output is duly noted--a few other people have had similar thoughts.
I am not aware of this being planned for the next update, but it is something that is being mentioned periodically as something to improve sooner than later.
And finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "
arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand"...
I don't recall any messages, particularly recently, implying anything like that?

I personally agree, for what it's worth, and hope that the documentation and software will continue to improve such that we can serve a reasonable lowest-common-denominator of users.
