Peter,
forking would work best with a freeze of the consensus code. Do you see any
chance for that?
Tamas Blummer
On Nov 7, 2014, at 1:03 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Forking the codebase, rather than rewriting it, best
ensures that your code actually implements the protocol
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:07:47AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:
Peter,
forking would work best with a freeze of the consensus code. Do you see any
chance for that?
To a first approximation the consensus code *is* frozen; if we introduce
any consensus changes into it at this point it's due to
Thinking out loud here : would it make sense to separate the consensus code
into some kind of Bitcoin Kernel (similar to the Linux Kernel) project
that could be used by anyone ?
Bitcoin Core (and any other application wishing to do so) could be based on
it.
The kernel would just contain the
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 11:30:22AM +, Clément Elbaz wrote:
Thinking out loud here : would it make sense to separate the consensus code
into some kind of Bitcoin Kernel (similar to the Linux Kernel) project
that could be used by anyone ?
That's a pretty old idea, and we're working on it.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Clément Elbaz clem...@gmail.com wrote:
Thinking out loud here : would it make sense to separate the consensus code
into some kind of Bitcoin Kernel (similar to the Linux Kernel) project
that could be used by anyone ?
Yes, we're moving in that direction. First
Who benefits from not fixing bugs in Bitcoin?
We can bring up politics if you want.
No, please don't. That question was rhetorical, not an invitation for you
to try and convince bystanders that anyone who disagrees with you is a
shadowy Agent Of Centralisation or an idiot. You use that
6 matches
Mail list logo
