As I understand things, Armory shouldn't have any problems if it encounters bigger blocks. If there are bugs, fixing them should be pretty trivial. Core/XT does the actual block validation. Armory then runs with the ball and is more concerned with the block's transactions, which aren't affected by the blocksize debate.
(If I'm wrong about any of this, I'm sure other developers will correct me.
)
are you saying Armory does not actually validate blocks? or can you elaborate this more pls? (i think you're saying we can switch bitcoin core with XT no problem as Armory just rely on them....)
But i still hope Armory team make a thread to clarify all this.
Thanks
Okay. Here's my understanding. Core already does a lot of heavy lifting. It validates blocks, does a lot of work to validate the transactions, etc. It wouldn't make sense for us to turn around and say, "Well, we need to do our own block verification scheme." Instead, we trust whatever comes out of Core, although we obviously need to have some processing logic in order to read the blocks and transactions, along with writing transactions.
In addition, when creating a Tx, we don't actually fire it onto the Bitcoin network ourselves. We form something that should be valid and feed it to Core, letting Core once again do the heavy lifting. If the Tx goes through, cool. If not, we try to give info to the user explaining what might have gone wrong.
Like I said, I could be wrong about some of the details. I'm pretty sure this is correct, though. It just doesn't make sense to, say, take several hours to download the blockchain (including time to verify the blocks) and then take several more re-validating everything. We trust that Core will provide us with good data. This has led to certain issues, like when the blockchain isn't complete. (Core apparently validates a block and then
attempts to write it to a file. If the write fails, Core won't care. Obviously, this leads to weirdness with Armory.)
