On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:30:06PM +0200, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I think there were some misunderstandings in our previous conversation
about this topic.
I completely agree with having a separated repository for libconsensus
(that's the whole point, alternative implementations can
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:40:42PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
It's a performance sacrifice, and then there's the OpenSSL dependency,
but these are both optional within our stack - so the application
developer has the option. So the only downside is that we are
maintaining the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan
laa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:30:06PM +0200, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
But I thought you also wanted Bitcoin Core to use libconsensus instead
of just having a subtree/subrepository like it currently does
Ok, I'm going to separate terms: current-libconsensus from theoretical
future-libconsensus (implementing ALL consensus rules).
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Eric Voskuil e...@voskuil.org wrote:
libsecp256k1 has it's own repository, libbitcoinconsensus doesn't. A
separate repository was what
I agree that the historical reasons are irrelevant from an engineering
perspective. But they still set a context for the discussion…and might help
shed some insight into the motivations behind some of the participants. It’s
also good to know these things to counter arguments that start with
Does it matter even in the slightest why the block size limit was put in
place? It does not. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment network, and the
relationship between utility (block size) and decentralization is
empirical. Why the 1MB limit was put in place at the time might be a
historically
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello all,
I'd like to disclose a vulnerability I discovered in September 2014,
which became unexploitable when BIP66's 95% threshold was reached
earlier this month.
## Short description:
A specially-crafted transaction could have forked the
On Jul 28, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
Note: many of these ideas are neither my own nor really all that new, but it
seems in the past we’ve given up too easily on actually moving forward on
them despite their critical importance.
In retrospect I regret not
That's not what I said. We don't seem able to communicate with each other
efficiently, probably my fault since English is not my native language. But
I don't want to use more of my time (or yours) in this discussion, since
it's clearly unproductive.
On Jul 28, 2015 6:45 PM, Tom Harding
On 07/23/2015 07:30 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On 07/22/2015 05:13 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Only being partly serious - I strongly am in favor of a sufficiently
modularized codebase that swapping out consensus
10 matches
Mail list logo
