MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:44:04 +0000
From: Monarch <monarch@cock.li>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
In-Reply-To: <55E4E7AA.6010905@sky-ip.org>
References: <602b978abcedd92fbed85f305d9d7bfe@cock.li>
	<55E4B8C9.5030606@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
	<e786da226b8e9cfaad335454b299ffd5@cock.li>
	<CAJfRnm4kwHkBLUUOmfzViUwsdAf3LYSTruvHw9+-RbgxSMHLRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5A3D7824-F1E3-421B-A32A-0EF21DD215BD@gmx.com>
	<55E4E7AA.6010905@sky-ip.org>
Message-ID: <4ed6151886030c9daddcb8fd2dca5d76@cock.li>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange
Precedence: list

On 2015-08-31 23:47, s7r via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> The problem is there is no other implementation out there which comes
> near the quality of the code in Bitcoin Core. I am actually eager to
> try other implementations as well, but something serious, because
> Bitcoin itself is a payment protocol not something to play with.
> 

I don't think code quality is of a particular problem in alternate
implementations, the difficulty of getting it right is simply
astronomical.  If you attempt to re-implement just transaction
signature verification you run into edge cases remarkably quickly,
most use of Bitcoin today barely scratches the surface of what was
added to Bitcoin for future expansion.

https://jonasnick.github.io/blog/2015/05/09/fuzzing-bitcoin-consensus/