Revise UI mock-ups for setting up human readable addresses

[GBKS]

This is a follow-up PR for #1082. The new page has conceptual mock-ups for setting up addresses, but we can go in much more detail, which will be more helpful for builders. There was also feedback on this topic here.

This is a placeholder issue for now, as I don't have all the questions and tasks 100% clear in my head yet. Will come back to this one, along with any other feedback that comes in.

[GBKS]

There was more feedback on the screens here.

Also need to revisit the point about informing users when payment info changes, to be only at the moment of initiating a payment, per Stephen's comment.

[BitcoinErrorLog]

I remain totally opposed to including non-standard, not-used, speculative proposals inside of something that is meant to be a general guide. It is inaccurate for the context, misleading, and potential king-making behavior. (referring to the "BOLT12" bitcoin address proposal from Matt, which is by no means accepted by anyone, anywhere. Nor is there anything even close to a consensus that this should be done.)

[GBKS]

@BitcoinErrorLog I assume your comment was meant for the main PR #1082, right?

It's interesting you use the term king-making behavior. I personally don't see the guide as that influential, but I also can't prove otherwise. The way I think about it is that we should be OK with discussing less widely adopted ideas in the guide. It can help validate if those ideas are good and identify the right way to go about implementing them. But that should also come with appropriate disclaimers, and sometimes a strong statement not to do something. It's obviously a fine line.

Either way, I don't want to hark on something where there is strong pushback. What do you think is a good way forward then? Leave this work as a PR until more consensus has formed? What would be consensus to you? A certain number of serious wallets projects having implemented it?

[BitcoinErrorLog]

I suppose I am commenting on overall Guide policy. I assume a goal is being a resource for onboarding designers & related roles into conventional, and even modern, knowledge and examples that may be relevant to their work.

I agree that neither of us could effectively measure the effectiveness of any king-making behavior, I just mentioned it as something best avoided altogether. And it is certainly avoidable if we agree on the goals.

You could do as you mention and require a certain standard of adoption, or other approaches, or even clarifying the goals to include being a resource for any known Bitcoin proposals, or Spiral proposals, or regardless of relevance, as long as they are Bitcoiny, like Runes, etc.

In the end, my opinion is simply that I imagine the target user of the guide will expect a certain amount of standardness and practicality to the advice contained within it, and I don't know a good argument for including speculative, unsupported proposals like this one.

I certainly defer to you and the people putting the actual work into this! Just trying to help.