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; 
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)
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas
Precedence: list

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