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

2015-02-18 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 06:13:06PM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > Yes you are dicking around. > > I thought I was clear, that I am using Bitcoin Core as border router talking > to its P2P interface. > > The reimplementation of consensus code

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

2015-02-18 Thread Peter Todd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 18 February 2015 22:32:05 GMT-05:00, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: >The work that Tamas did re-implementing is probably one of the most >valuable >things he ever did. ...in the same way going to university may be one of the more valuable things yo

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

2015-02-18 Thread Tamas Blummer
Libconsensus will create an in-process alternative to the border router setup I currently advocate in a production environment. It is not sufficient yet, since only checking scripts, but is the move I was long waiting for. I launched a Lighthouse project to add Java Language Binding to lib con

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

2015-02-18 Thread Tamas Blummer
On Feb 19, 2015, at 6:22 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote: > I launched a Lighthouse project to add Java Language Binding to lib > consensus. Let's turn the debate to a constructive vote. > > See on https://www.reddit.com/r/LighthouseProjects I should have added the project description here, as above i