On 02/14/2015 05:13 AM, 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...
done
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus
...
Then ... when the next time we decide to soft-fork Bitcoin
On 2/19/15 9:30 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
Java/JNA bindings can be used from Python, Ruby, Javascript, PHP as
well as dialects of Haskell, Lisp, Smalltalk and a bunch of more
obscure languages like Scala, Kotlin, Ceylon, etc.
It makes more sense to talk about bindings to particular runtimes
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
He didn't said a project for all possible language bindings, just
java bindings. Other languages' bindings would be separate projects.
Yes/no/sorta.
Java/JNA bindings can be used from Python, Ruby, Javascript, PHP as well as
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Bryan Bishop kanz...@gmail.com wrote:
Second, I think that squeezing all possible language bindings into a project
is also unproductive.
The language binding would be an independent and
He didn't said a project for all possible language bindings, just
java bindings. Other languages' bindings would be separate projects.
Yes/no/sorta.
Java/JNA bindings can be used from Python, Ruby, Javascript, PHP as well as
dialects of Haskell, Lisp, Smalltalk and a bunch of more obscure
On Feb 19, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Bryan Bishop kanz...@gmail.com wrote:
First, I strongly disagree with voting here for reasons that I hope others
will elaborate on.
I meant voting by pledging on the lighthouse project, not here on the list.
Sorry for not stating this explicitelly.
Second, I
I strongly suggest you take a look at swig for doing this. It's very
straightforward generating bindings in an automated fashion with it.
http://www.swig.org/
You could probably have it done in one or two days with Swig.
Once you do the Java bindings with it, it'll be a few adjustments and
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:04:49AM -0800, Adam Back wrote:
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
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 06:13:06PM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:
On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org 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.
Ah, sorry, that wasn't clear to
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 03:23:47PM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:
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
On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org 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 helped me to deeply understand the
protocol, aids debugging
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
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
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
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
