Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.101 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.101; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148101.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 12:11:01 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Message-ID: <20150215171100.GC21269@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <54D0414F.6030806@voskuil.org>
	<CABm2gDo_sYjNWU6EEsKmOXt5uUu87Lj1oFzqio79MxSx2SYrNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DE7601.4070509@voskuil.org>
	<CABm2gDpt60B=Sf_2X9xt4fPH7x4fff7K4h36XfosHigV5tP+4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DF07A5.1060004@voskuil.org>
	<CABm2gDoS+XOR7Ugt91kNWNdvwsb1_Zb-aO0sma_Xps2Sx-0N5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DF2E80.5060506@voskuil.org>
	<20150214131320.GA26731@savin.petertodd.org>
	<3D4F2E23-CADE-4FE7-B960-3F79815E868C@bitsofproof.com>
	<CALqxMTFDVfOai0Y=O7UWrk5pk5pWSMz+FGedJngEZ-V=bDjGTg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTFDVfOai0Y=O7UWrk5pk5pWSMz+FGedJngEZ-V=bDjGTg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re:
 [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)
Precedence: list


--YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 rally around libconsensus.

It's worth remembering that one of the goals in writing - or to be more
precise, separating - libconsensus from the Bitcoin Core codebase is to
make it easier to maintain strict consensus between Bitcoin Core
versions.

> I would advise any bitcoin ecosystem part, wallet, user to not use softwa=
re
> with consensus protocol rw-writes nor variants, you WILL lose money.
>=20
> You could view bitcoin as a digital signature algorithm speculatively
> tinkering with the algo is highly prone to binary failure mode and
> unbounded funds loss.
>=20
> Want to be clear this is not a political nor emotive issue. It is a
> critical technical requirement for security if users of software people
> write.

The necessity of it isn't a political or emotive issue, but the
consequences are definitely political. Just not in the way that most of
the ecosystem appears to think.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000016b6444e463c7d92da1579360c5f71d4fbd3dab45d13990a

--YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=LtD3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ--