On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Tamas Blummer <ta...@bitsofproof.com> wrote: > Every re-implementation, re-factoring even copy-paste introduces a risk of > disagreement, > but also open the chance of doing the work better, in the sense of software > engineering.
But you don't want something better, you want something functionally identical. You may want to watch sipa's explanation on why "the implementation is the specification" and the reasons to separate libconsensus: https://youtu.be/l3O4nh79CUU?t=764 >> On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:06, Jorge Timón <jti...@jtimon.cc> wrote: >> >> >> But the goal is not reimplementing the consensus rules but rather >> extract them from Bitcoin Core so that nobody needs to re-implement >> them again. > > > > My goal is different. Compatibility with Bitcoin is important as I also want > to deal with Bitcoins, > but it is also imperative to be able to create and serve other block chains > with other rules and for those > I do not want to carry on the legacy of an antique tool set and a spaghetti > style. > > Bits of Proof uses scala (akka networking), java (api service), c++ (leveledb > and now libconsensus) > and I am eager to integrate secp256k1 (c) as soon as part of consensus. The > choices were > made because each piece appears best in what they do. Since you already depend on libconsensus for VerifyScript, wouldn't it be nice that it also offered VerifyTx, VerifyHeader and VerifyBlock? You would still have complete control over storage, concurrency, networking, policy... My plan is for the C API to interface with the external storage by passing a function pointer to it. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
