George, don't you think it would be a good idea to ask the paper wallet provider to either remove Spreadcoin from their site or modify the generator to work properly?
Well, the generators DO work properly, it's just that they don't care to inform the user about further specifications/limitations of a coin.
You can create wonderful paperwallets with them, just be sure to send your SPR to the right (compressed) address!
So, what's the issue with those generator sites?
It's very easy to create a generator for hundreds of coins by just switching the network byte and assign it to a coin name and logo.
But it would be extra work to properly test the results and warn people about specific issues. (with sometimes fatal consequences)
Those sites try to skip this extra work by just
indiscriminately showing both compressed and uncompressed addresses, although NO coin (as far as I know) allows for simultaneous usage of both address types.
They know that some coins use this format and some the other, and they assume that the user will be informed enough to know what to choose.
So, I'd rather people wise up and know about the dangers instead of me having to police all third party sites. That would turn into a never ending job.
For what its worth, I wouldn't really call this a rookie error. Its more of a case of a usually reliable service that is mis configured for your project.
Rookie as in "learning the hard way in what state most altcoin sites and services are".
We've all been there. I'm not being condescending.
Walletgenerator sites are lazy, but I don't really blame them.
Though I wouldn't call that "reliable service", just look for example at this glaring mistake in the universalwalletgenerator.net