Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Will Electrum switch to Bitcoin Classic? #1639

Closed
yarwelp opened this issue Jan 17, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

Will Electrum switch to Bitcoin Classic? #1639

yarwelp opened this issue Jan 17, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

@yarwelp
Copy link

yarwelp commented Jan 17, 2016

No description provided.

@ecdsa ecdsa closed this as completed Jan 17, 2016
@berdario
Copy link

This is a valid feature request, it'd be nice if @ecdsa actually elaborate while closing these issues.

If this needs more discussion, a thread somewhere might be a better fit, but the only place for a permanent discussion seems to be bitcointalk.org, which has the well known censorship problem when dealing with non-bitcoin-core stuff (though Bitcoin Classic is a shallow-fork that's as shallow as you can get)

OTOH, the correct project on which to file this bug might be electrum-server, since the protocol and the client app itself shouldn't need any change, and in fact people could run any bitcoin daemon of their choice on their servers, it seems

https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum-server/blob/master/INSTALL#L16

Still, this might need some help with the defaults/UI, I guess, which this other issue discuss:

spesmilo/electrum-server#98

That is, I'm afraid that currently people might connect to bitcoind-core, bitcoind-classic, bitcoind-xt without being aware of the differences... it could be nice if people could actually decide, but I haven't really thought of the issues/consequences

@ecdsa
Copy link
Member

ecdsa commented Jan 23, 2016

This is not a feature request, it's a question, that is completely irrelevant for Electrum development, so it does not belong here. The decision to run Bitcoin Core or Classic belongs to Electrum servers operators, not to me. I do not have the power to impose them a particular choice.

That being said, I do not support Bitcoin Classic. I support Segwit.

@berdario
Copy link

Yup, I realized that this might've been better suited as an electrum-server issue and I updated my comment earlier.

Re. your support for Segwit: Good to know, I don't know the tradeoffs about it yet, but I'll educate myself.

@yarwelp
Copy link
Author

yarwelp commented Jan 23, 2016

I should probably have written a bit more in my original issue. I am using Electrum client and was just wondering about whether or not I'd still be able to send and receive transactions using Electrum client in case the majority of the people who use Bitcoin move to Bitcoin Classic. I don't know so much about Bitcoin, I just have a few satoshis which I bought online. Apologies for any confusion.

@dabura667
Copy link
Contributor

this might've been better suited as an electrum-server issue

It's not really even that.

electrum-server runs on Bitcoin. All these hardfork fad-implementations are literally just a change in a single value. afaik electrum-server doesn't even do anything with the max blocksize value, and it trusts that the underlying node software will check those rules for it.

So someone running Classic would be able to run electrum-server the exact same as someone running Core. It makes no difference.

@ABISprotocol
Copy link

Verification is an issue for the end user. I wish to point out that I have struggled to convey the difficulty for end-users of being able to verify what the server operators are actually running.
For details on this please see a bitcointalk thread which covers more of the issues.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants