[bisq-contrib] How to deal with the B2X fork?

[sqrrm]

I don't really like the idea since it goes against the distributed
nature of Bisq. Having said that, unfortunately at this point I can't
think of a better option, it seems worse to take the risk of bitcoinj
doing a reorg creating a lot of trouble for users and arbitrators.

Cheers


On 06/11/17 00:58, Manfred Karrer wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> if we would go for the option of “trusted BTC nodes” as protection
> against B2X (and fighting the bloom filter issue with it as well) we
> have to prepare soon for it as we need quite a few btc full nodes. It
> will also requires some code changes and testing.
>
> Could you give feedback what you think about it?
>
> Br,
> Manfred
>  
>
>> On 3 Nov 2017, at 12:04, Manfred Karrer <mk at nucleo.io
>> <mailto:mk at nucleo.io>> wrote:
>>
>> I wrote up some thoughts about how to deal with the B2X fork.
>>
>> For better readability and ability to comment I used a google doc:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fgxfrcpx1RNm36-YjqM5dLw3wXETsneEF2CKdXwJJ5Q/
>>
>>
>> Please leave your comments there or answer directly here.
>>
>>
>> Br,
>> Manfred
>> _______________________________________________
>> bisq-contrib mailing list
>> bisq-contrib at lists.bisq.network <mailto:bisq-contrib at lists.bisq.network>
>> https://lists.bisq.network/listinfo/bisq-contrib
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bisq-contrib mailing list
> bisq-contrib at lists.bisq.network
> https://lists.bisq.network/listinfo/bisq-contrib

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-contrib/attachments/20171106/73a51a26/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-contrib/attachments/20171106/73a51a26/attachment.sig>