Currently bitcoinj doesn't support BIP9, which of course is something we should implement.
On top of that (as separate PRs) we could support signalling/activation for several BIPs (e.g. Segwit), similar to how the old signalling via block versions is supported today. (Side note: I personally think UASF is a bad idea due to the risks involved, but since the users of bitcoinj are devs who should know what they're doing I would not object to optional BIP148 support.) On 05/29/2017 01:34 PM, Manfred Karrer wrote: > Similar to the BU fork risk scenario we will get troubles in Bitsquare > if we mix connections to UASF nodes and non-UASF nodes. > I am wondering what is the best way how to deal with it. > One user at Reddit responded: > "SPV wallets check block headers, which is enough to enforce BIP148 > (i.e. rejecting non-segwit signalling block headers)." > https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6dxo7h/electrum_and_mycelium_now_publicly_support_uasf/di6h39y/?context=3 > > Can anyone familiar with the BitcoinJ code confirm that? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "bitcoinj" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bitcoinj" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
