Name and direction about electrumx

[aggressivelurker]

I believe altcoin support adds unneeded complexity and waste maintenance resources and they should be removed.

[ecdsa]

At this point there is no evidence that a new name is needed. Most users of ElectrumX use it for Bitcoin, and they use that name in association with Bitcoin. Thus, changing the name would confuse a majority of users. I believe that keeping the name is also a way to acknowledge the role of @kyuupichan

However, that decision is temporary; we might indeed have to rename the project. My position is that we do not have to do that for the moment, so it is better to wait.

Regarding altcoin support: I think that making altcoin support through modules (or config files) could negatively impact us, because it would make our code more complex. I prefer a situation where altcoins maintain their own fork of the project, and where "modularity" means that their code can be rebased easily.

[SomberNight]

Note that if we want to release on PyPI (pip), we need a name for that.

As for altcoins, I am still neutral on that. They are already in the repo, already abstracted away, each with at least a (basic) unit test. In my view, until they are in the way for meaningful changes, we might as well keep them. I don't personally care about altcoins either, the question is whether by having them we attract any contributors who make changes useful for us too.

[whizz]

Note that if we want to release on PyPI (pip), we need a name for that.

This was one my main reasons why I brought it up. Given that Python uses a global repository of modules in a lot of cases, conflicts might rise as the versions will inevitably start diverging.

[cipig]

Please keep altcoin support, many projects need that. I am running electrums for AtomicDEX, for dozens of coins and having to deal with dozens of different electrumx server sources would make my work a lot more complicated.

[Giszmo]

A lot about electrumX is the way it is in order to be coin agnostic. I don't care about alts but I see how electrumx is as relevant as it is because all the alt devs care about the project and all the multi-coin-wallet devs rely on it for their backend. Therefore, personally I would not support an effort to strip alts from the project but on the other hand I would not support making any concessions to add more alts, neither. No API changes to accommodate alt-coins.

[ahmedbodi]

To add to this, i've been maintaining my own fork of electrumx/electrum designed for alts. (electrumx has no major changes) but the electrum has had an overhaul for altcoin support. i'd be happy to accept any PR's made here for alt's over in https://github.com/electrum-altcoin/electrumx