summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/06/c327e58dadb04f124355b8a1e86dc162d7f1a9
blob: 524db7ae74f1c9509419288292d8ef732078dcbe (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <roy@gnomon.org.uk>) id 1UFt8V-0005nm-Tm
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:22:59 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk
	designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk;
	helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; 
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk ([93.93.131.22])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UFt8U-0004EO-8P
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:22:59 +0000
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk (localhost.gnomon.org.uk [127.0.0.1])
	by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r2DLMhPW043327
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:22:48 GMT (envelope-from roy@darla.gnomon.org.uk)
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at darla.gnomon.org.uk
Received: (from roy@localhost)
	by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.1/Submit) id r2DLMhRk043326;
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:22:43 GMT (envelope-from roy)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:22:43 +0000
From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Message-ID: <20130313212243.GQ96148@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <201303131256.30144.luke@dashjr.org>
	<201303132106.45334.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<201303132114.04596.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201303132114.04596.luke@dashjr.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Score: -3.9 (---)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-2.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
X-Headers-End: 1UFt8U-0004EO-8P
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:23:00 -0000

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:14:03PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:06:44 PM Andy Parkins wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 Mar 2013 12:56:29 Luke-Jr wrote:
> > > Here's a simple proposal to start discussion from...
> > 
> > It seems to me that the biggest failure was not the development of two
> > chains, but the assurance to users (by the client) that their transactions
> > were confirmed.
> 
> These are both the same thing.

The idea of the client detecting/warning about not-trivial forking
seems worthwhile too, though, assuming it doesn't already (AIUI it
doesn't).

I don't know if there's any automatic monitoring for forks, but if not
I would assume that the core devs and/or Bitcoin Foundation would be
planning to put some in place.  But there's no reason I can see why
end users clients should't be warning of such situations, too, when
they can (obviously they won't always be aware of the fork).

roy