Given the animosity (and the exchanges making public comments on it), I don't think it's worth risking users' safety on such a bet. The API should probably at least allow a simple "the block with hash X is invalid, ignore that chain" function. Might want to also have something similar for the Android wallet (or at least notify users that they are likely to end up using BTU and not BTC).
On March 20, 2017 6:07:46 PM PDT, Andreas Schildbach <[email protected]> wrote: >Forks happen every day. Every time the minority chain dies very >quickly. >Why should this be different? > >Afaik we'd need block a length commitment to be able to distinguish as >an SPV/lite wallet. E.g. as a field in the block header. > > >On 03/20/2017 05:04 PM, Manfred Karrer wrote: >> Exactly. Also there are many people (including me) who will not >consider >> the longest PoW chain which follows a different consensus rule as the >> valid Bitcoin version. >> Beside that for a project like Bitsquare which is a wallet and >exchange >> there are many potential issues and risks (replay attacks). >> I think BitcoinJ needs a feature to distinguish clearly which chain >the >> user is supporting. >> >> >> Am Montag, 20. März 2017 10:25:49 UTC-5 schrieb Matt Corallo: >> >> Given it appears likely there will be two separate currencies, it >> seems really bad to not have some ability for users to >differentiate >> between them. Users will end up highly confused when they do a >> trade, receive BTU, and deposit it to an exchange only to find no >BTC. >> >> >> On March 19, 2017 6:42:57 PM PDT, Amitabh Saxena >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Will bitcoinj reject larger blocks? >> >> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 4:38:55 PM UTC+5:30, Andreas >> Schildbach wrote: >> >> As long as a fork does not change the proof of work >rules, >> bitcoinj >> makes no assumptions about forks. It will always select >the >> chain with >> the most work. >> >> What do you mean by "requesting an UTXO" and what do you >> want to achieve >> by that? >> >> >> On 03/14/2017 06:07 PM, Manfred Karrer wrote: >> > If there would happen really a BU fork SPV wallets >could >> get a >> > connection to a majority of BU nodes and so a different >> view to the network. >> > Any plans or ideas how to deal with that? >> > >> > One idea would be to use a UTXO which is known to exist >on >> only 1 chain >> > request that and use that as a check to see which chain >> the node is >> > operated on. >> > If it is not the chain the wallet supports the node >gets >> disconnected. >> > >> > Br, >> > Manfred >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to >> the Google >> > Groups "bitcoinj" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving >emails >> from it, send >> > an email to [email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>. >> > For more options, visit >https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "bitcoinj" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >send >> an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bitcoinj" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
