BIP21 already exists as an amount-designated URI scheme. P…

We’re compatible with BIP21 with an amount - that works with HandCash. But not raw legacy addresses again, for security purposes. Not blaming users at any point either: blaming other app developers who want to stick to bad UX. Not our call.

We won’t use unsafe standards where people send money into the void just because most wallet developers don’t care about their users sending money into the void - for whatever reason. We either move the needle or become irrelevant.

Bip21 is not good enough for many reasons. People VERY OFTEN send the wrong amount with Bip21. The BIP270 protocol solves this issue.

Bip21 only allows for one output, eliminating the chance of app developers taking profits on chain or creating creative apps. BIP270 solves this.

With BIP21 app developers have to listen to ALL GLOBAL transactions to find the one they want. Bip270 solves this by sending signed transactions directly between service providers.

BIP21 simply is not nearly as useful nor efficient as BIP270 and Paymail.

BIP270 is a better standard than BIP21 is a better standard than BIP70, no doubt.

Yeah BIP70 is tough to implement, takes way more work. 10x harder or more.

With Handcash and Anypay we actually stripped down BIP270 even further realizing the custom headers were not needed for our application.

I'm really excited about companies like Handcash and Anypay pushing BIP270 forward. You and @102 are 100% right about needing to push the technology and standards forward

But I also think users are generally competent and should have choices (legacy addr)

Totally disingenuous. A cross-chain send isn't the "void," it simply requires sweeping a PK on a wallet compatible with the alternate chain.

There are other wallets that can sweep cross-chain PKs with a single click.

Do you not want the support burden of helping these users? Do you feel you need to protect your customers from themselves because you know better?

Then just say that.

To our target audience that's a huge inconvenience, and we don't desire them to be dealing with these things. It's as easy as using better standards ecosystem-wide but hey, I'm only in charge of HandCash.

Yes, we protect users from themselves. That's why they use HandCash in the first place. If they wanted to code their own wallet and deal with keys, they'd be using other products. HandCash is not for everybody.

For that, use other products. Supporting the legacy side is super expensive, but non-developers don't understand this because they don't see the cost and resources required: running nodes, crawling the blockchain, potential double spends, support...

If it were expensive BUT better, then OK, but being expensive and way worse... there's no way we're going back to supporting Legacy (once we finally get rid of it 100% as soon as other things are in place)