Show Posts
Quote
Armory is also open source so if a decent dev team is creating a fork/split they could probably also submit a PR
Same as with BCH, no one from their team bothered to even email me to announce their fork. Really all it would have taken for me to provide support would have been to send me an email at worst a month prior to the fork with the list of commits that touch address format and signer changes, as well as access to their testnet. But neither did they bother doing that, like BCH they turned on their testnet AFTER their forked.
You'd imagine a sensible fork project would actually go out of its way to invite wallet and service providers to review their implementation for replay protection, but who am I kidding?
BCH was rushed in to avoid Segwit on that chain so maybe a bit understandable at least.
Original plan for the UAHF was called off with BIP91 in the end it was the right step to continue as BIP91 had no consensus anymore after Segwit was activated so now at least those who want bigger blocks have them and those who don't want them have Segwit ( I still think increasing Blocksize on BTC would have avoid all the mess and wont have stopped development for other solutions but ok ).
Now we all have to deal with the mess and probably 100000000 more coming forks/splits.
From big blocker perspective it would've been better to not do BIP91 and just Fork much earlier with longer and better planning, even the momentum was much bigger for Big blocks before BIP91.
