Quote from: droark on September 30, 2017, 05:01:38 PM

Should Armory enforce the opt-in (if it gets added, which I suppose will happen at the last minute), and explicitly require users to opt out?

I'm not adding GUI elements to hand hold if that's what you're referring to. The opt-out is simple enough to use: send coins back to yourself until you're sure you have correctly tainted, regardless of the tainting method.

If a users lack the patience to execute this, or the knowledge to understand what he is doing, he will need to take time to educate himself on the matter. I'll put out a guide as with BCH.

What I could do, since 2x insists upon the lack of 2 way replay protection, could be to detect the fork by its fork point and issue a message box warning whenever someone is trying to spend a UTXO that predates the fork point. However, not knowing if 2x has wipeout protection, detection may get a whole lot harder than just hardcoding a header hash and checking against it.

Quote

The two proposals I've seen are a magic OP_RETURN value [which is not supported by most wallets, but is supported by Armory], or an output to a magic P2SH address [Much more bloat, and it bloats the UTXO-set too], which can be done with any existing wallet.

Both are shit. The bare minimum requirements for a clean HF are (in descending order):

1) wipeout protection
2) 2-way mandatory replay protection
3) make testnet available about a year before the HF (you should FF then)
4) change script hash prefixes to reflect the new mainnet and testnet, and change network ports

I don't even know if 2X is trying to get 1) right.

As for the details, the second method is sensibly worst than the first since it naturally suggests a UTXO consolidation strategy that will result in a massive privacy leak. Fungibility be damned!

Both methods fail anyways, since they do not provide a strong guarantee of replay protection to begin with. Therefor you are left with spending coins back to yourself until you get lots of confirmations on an actual taint. Therefor, these methods, whichever they end up going with, are basically pointless shortcuts that do not significantly impact the complexity of a "raw" tainting procedure.