diff options
| author | Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> | 2014-12-15 17:46:41 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2014-12-15 17:46:47 +0000 |
| commit | b4d314d05b41dca9c2a84224341af1d4e7a8d912 (patch) | |
| tree | 41b17da3da1e4b4a5df2d6cf8476c34781ee445e | |
| parent | 032be6ab73a190070700490d1e9cd8aab5224ad1 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-b4d314d05b41dca9c2a84224341af1d4e7a8d912.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-b4d314d05b41dca9c2a84224341af1d4e7a8d912.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Recent EvalScript() changes mean CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY can't be merged
| -rw-r--r-- | e8/f5ab8d464b6515d48148cbe57447c4ab10b056 | 83 |
1 files changed, 83 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/e8/f5ab8d464b6515d48148cbe57447c4ab10b056 b/e8/f5ab8d464b6515d48148cbe57447c4ab10b056 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..77aa18ab9 --- /dev/null +++ b/e8/f5ab8d464b6515d48148cbe57447c4ab10b056 @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1Y0ZjL-0005if-3k + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:46:47 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.213.178; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; + helo=mail-ig0-f178.google.com; +Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com ([209.85.213.178]) + by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1Y0ZjK-0001JN-FM + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:46:47 +0000 +Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hl2so5516021igb.11 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:46:41 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.107.156.67 with SMTP id f64mr10233467ioe.9.1418665601235; + Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:46:41 -0800 (PST) +Received: by 10.64.195.225 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:46:41 -0800 (PST) +In-Reply-To: <20141215124730.GA8321@savin.petertodd.org> +References: <20141215124730.GA8321@savin.petertodd.org> +Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:46:41 +0000 +Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAYC8SJ2wOTfhATfzemV+Qb3CarOQotHrzmx5JE+q2iLQ@mail.gmail.com> +From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> +To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider + (laanwj[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from + author's domain + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature +X-Headers-End: 1Y0ZjK-0001JN-FM +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Recent EvalScript() changes mean + CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY can't be merged +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:46:47 -0000 + +> While it would be nice to have a library encapsulating the consensus code, this +> shouldn't come at the cost of safety, especially when the actual users of that +> library or their needs is still uncertain. + +While I agree that it shouldn't come at unreasonable risk, my whole +reason for prioritizing the consensus library is that it is the first +step toward the goal of isolating the consensus code completely. As +soon as it exists in a repository by itself, it is easier to enforce a +different regime of change control there, or even freeze it completely +over time. To keep track of consensus changes one'd only have to +follow that repository, instead of filter it between tons of GUI, RPC +or utility commits. + +IMO having the consensus isolated into a portable self-contained +library is the most important goal of Bitcoin Core project at this +point. I've tried to keep the amount of unnecessary refactoring down, +but some is unfortunately unavoidable. + +I'm sure we can find a way to rebase CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY so that it +can land in 0.11. + +Wladimir + + |