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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Breadwallet seems to be planning to fraudulently move its users from Bitcoin to the 2X altcoin #1761

Open
luke-jr opened this Issue Aug 23, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
Contributor

Mirobit commented Aug 23, 2017

This is going to be an empty "chose your wallet" page.

@wbnns wbnns self-assigned this Aug 23, 2017

@wbnns wbnns added the Under Review label Aug 23, 2017

Contributor

theymos commented Aug 23, 2017 edited

In previous discussions, the consensus was that since headers-only wallets cannot easily detect these things, they should not generally be considered to be altcoin wallets as long as they are currently acting as Bitcoin wallets. There's a reasonable case to be made that headers-only wallets are inherently insecure and should maybe be removed from bitcoin.org for that reason, but that's a different issue.

Though if someone created a fork of Breadwallet which fixed this issue, it seems to me that it would be strictly superior to list that fork instead.

Contributor

luke-jr commented Aug 23, 2017

It would be trivial for light wallets to download any possible block 494784 in full, and check the size of it.

Contributor

crwatkins commented Aug 23, 2017

I agree with @luke-jr that it would be trivial for wallets to check. However, there are currently a lot of things that SPV wallets do not check, nor do we have criteria for them to check. As I've been fond of saying in the past, I believe that if we want to have new criteria, then we should discuss them, add them, and then apply them consistently to all the wallets.

As @theymos alludes, I believe that breadwallet is currently acting as a Bitcoin wallet, just as many other wallets that are listed do (as @Mirobit alluded). The breadwallet team is being proactive in describing the current behavior of their wallet as well being open to discussing future behavior.

I don't believe anyone has proposed any specific action in this thread yet, so I'll leave it at that for me too.

@wbnns wbnns added On Hold and removed Under Review labels Aug 24, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment