Quote from: fastandfurious on March 23, 2012, 10:52:44 AM

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on March 18, 2012, 04:12:07 PM

I started experimenting with user-defined checkpoints (-checkpoint=height,hash multiarg, and 'addcheckpoint ' RPC call) but stopped when higher priority issues came up.

It seems to me that type of low-level mechanism is the right way to go; checkpointing is a good low-level way of identifying which chain you think is "the" chain. And making it command-line/RPC configurable means we don't all have to agree on One True Way of deciding what the right blockchain aught to be; cunicula can write some code that implements proof-of-stake and then tie it into bitcoin/bitcoind using -blocknotify. etotheipi can write some code that scans the blockchain for well-known miner signatures (or asks miners directly if they produced a new block), etc.

If your argument is "But Gavin, if core Bitcoin doesn't support One True Way of doing I'll never be able to convince miners to do it my way!" then I'd say you need to better express to them how the benefits of your proposal outweigh the costs.

Any update on this, will this get implemented in the near future (less than a couple of months)?

Is there a BIP or wiki to describe this? I think I misunderstood this post from Gavin, but it looks to me like a reconciliation for forks?