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, walle

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 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 service rules, wall

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 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 correctness for th

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 p

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 p

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 wrote: > So stop wasting your time. Help get the consensus critical code out of > Bitcoin Core and into a stand-alone libconsensus library,

[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 "de