Joel Joonatan Kaartinen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-09-16 🗒️ Summary of this message: Failing hard is ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-09-16
🗒️ Summary of this message: Failing hard is better for Bitcoin's protection as it immediately notifies users of the problem, while failing soft may increase the risk of network splitting.
📝 Original message:> Darn good question. If the protection fails, would it be better for it
> to 'fail hard', leaving people complaining "bitcoin won't stay
> connected!"
>
> Or fail soft, so you at least have a couple of connections.
>
> I think fail hard is better-- we'll immediately know about the
> problem, and can fix it. Fail soft makes me nervous because I think
> that would make it more likely a bug splits the network (and,
> therefore, the blockchain).
My own preference would be to fail hard with detection of the problem
and notification of the user if there's a GUI connected and/or running.
- Joel
🗒️ Summary of this message: Failing hard is better for Bitcoin's protection as it immediately notifies users of the problem, while failing soft may increase the risk of network splitting.
📝 Original message:> Darn good question. If the protection fails, would it be better for it
> to 'fail hard', leaving people complaining "bitcoin won't stay
> connected!"
>
> Or fail soft, so you at least have a couple of connections.
>
> I think fail hard is better-- we'll immediately know about the
> problem, and can fix it. Fail soft makes me nervous because I think
> that would make it more likely a bug splits the network (and,
> therefore, the blockchain).
My own preference would be to fail hard with detection of the problem
and notification of the user if there's a GUI connected and/or running.
- Joel