On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:04:49AM -0800, Adam Back wrote:
> Strongly with Peter on this.  That its highly complex to maintain strict
> consensus between bitcoin versions, does not justify consensus rewrite
> experiments; it tells you that the risk is exponentially worse and people
> should use and rally around libconsensus.

It's worth remembering that one of the goals in writing - or to be more
precise, separating - libconsensus from the Bitcoin Core codebase is to
make it easier to maintain strict consensus between Bitcoin Core

> I would advise any bitcoin ecosystem part, wallet, user to not use software
> with consensus protocol rw-writes nor variants, you WILL lose money.
> You could view bitcoin as a digital signature algorithm speculatively
> tinkering with the algo is highly prone to binary failure mode and
> unbounded funds loss.
> Want to be clear this is not a political nor emotive issue. It is a
> critical technical requirement for security if users of software people
> write.

The necessity of it isn't a political or emotive issue, but the
consequences are definitely political. Just not in the way that most of
the ecosystem appears to think.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to