Yes, anything that is protected by the POW (aka "commitment"). So a length header field would do, or a new version number (though version numbers tend to cause conflicts between branches if they're not hierarchical).
On 03/21/2017 05:40 PM, Patrick McCorry wrote: > But that is all it would take for Bitcoinj to have the choice on which > chain to follow? I can't think of anything else (except which network > nodes to connect too) that would need to be changed . > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 16:35:18 UTC, Andreas Schildbach wrote: > > Afaik no. > > On 03/21/2017 05:20 PM, Patrick McCorry wrote: > > Are there plans in BU to update the version number of the block > header > > and transactions? > > > > If so, then that should be able to indicate whether Bitcoinj is > > following BTC or BTU? > > > > Maybe i'm overlooking something? > > > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 16:14:03 UTC, Matt Corallo wrote: > > > > The fork is caused by the hard fork being contentious, and many > > wishing to stay on the old chain. The EC stuff has nothing to do > > with the fork, aside from BU generally relaxing consensus rules, > > making it a HF. > > > > On March 21, 2017 9:02:37 AM PDT, Andreas Schildbach > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Afaik the currency code isn't part of any protocol, so I don't > > >understand how BTC vs. BTU can cause a fork. To my > understanding it is > > >the (differing) EC that would cause the fork you're fearing. If > > this is > > >not the case, can you please clarify what fork you mean? > > > > > > > > >On 03/21/2017 04:22 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: > > >> Hmm? I'm not referring to EC, but to BTU/BTC - a fork that > does seem > > >at least very possible. Because it's am SPV client I'm not > sure what > > >else could be done...An upgrade for Bitcoin Wallet for Android > > could be > > >pushed out to fetch from a URL that will be updated with the > fork > > block > > >hash, which could be downloaded, validated as >1MB, and then > the user > > >could be asked which currency they wish to use. > > >> > > >> [Not to derail, but EC as implemented is horribly broken - the > > sticky > > >gate stuff the BU devs refused to remove opens the system up > to all > > >kinds of attacks. Even they've admitted that the only way it > works is > > >if 51% of miners select parameters and everyone else goes > along with > > >them, at which point I'm really not sure why not just do > blocksize > > >voting on chain, but whatever.] > > >> > > >> On March 21, 2017 2:48:08 AM PDT, Andreas Schildbach > > ><[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Your proposal has the problem that block hashes are not > known in > > >>> advance. By the time you (manually?) added the hash to the > > blacklist > > >>> most bitcoinj nodes will already have processed that > block. You > > >would > > >>> need to have the blacklist cause re-orgs, too. Here is gets > > tricky I > > >>> guess, both for the implementation and for the end-users. > > >>> > > >>> Personally I'm not happy about blacklist features in > general. But > > >I'd > > >>> probably still review/merge a block blacklist feature if > there is > > >>> considerable demand from developers using bitcoinj. > > >>> > > >>> btw. Do you really think an EC fork will happen? Please > correct me > > >if > > >>> I've got the math wrong, but AD6 means you'd have to mine > 7 blocks > > >in a > > >>> row, for which you have to have about 91% of hashpower to > make it > > >>> economically feasible (0.91^7=0.51). Yes you can skew that > number a > > >bit > > >>> by accepting losses, but still it feels EC is almost in > the same > > >boat > > >>> as > > >>> SegWit. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 03/21/2017 02:14 AM, Matt Corallo wrote: > > >>>> 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> > > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>> > > >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout> > > <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 <https://groups.google.com/d/optout> > > <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 > <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.
