Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4

2015-02-14 Thread Ross Nicoll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Arriving slightly late to the discussion, apologies. Personally I wouldn't have written that patch, but I know development of hostile patches happens out of sight, and if it can be written, we have to presume it will be written eventually. I'd have

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

2015-02-14 Thread Tamas Blummer
Peter, You did not address me but libbitcoin. Since our story and your evaluation is probably similar, I chime in. On Feb 14, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: So stop wasting your time. Help get the consensus critical code out of Bitcoin Core and into a stand-alone

[Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

2015-02-14 Thread Peter Todd
I haven't bothered reading the thread, but I'll put this out there: The consensus critical Satoshi-derived sourcecode is a protocol *specification* that happens to also be machine readable and executable. Rewriting it is just as silly as as taking RFC 791 and rewriting it because you wanted to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

2015-02-14 Thread Adam Back
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. I would advise any bitcoin ecosystem

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

2015-02-14 Thread Bryan Bishop
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote: That its highly complex to maintain strict consensus between bitcoin versions, does not justify consensus rewrite experiments Correct. However, those maintenance costs absolutely do justify working towards formal proofs of

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

2015-02-14 Thread Jorge Timón
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: Peter, We have seen that the consensus critical code practically extends to Berkley DB limits or OpenSSL laxness, therefore it is inconceivable that a consensus library is not the same as Bitcoin Core, less its P2P

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

2015-02-14 Thread Luke Dashjr
On Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:23:47 PM Tamas Blummer wrote: We have seen that the consensus critical code practically extends to Berkley DB limits or OpenSSL laxness, therefore it is inconceivable that a consensus library is not the same as Bitcoin Core, less its P2P service rules, wallet