Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=kanzure@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTFDVfOai0Y=O7UWrk5pk5pWSMz+FGedJngEZ-V=bDjGTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABm2gDpReRty6TdfMDssjF27XgC_SYs_U__SFBNdsYW24Mzh8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<54CC0E1D.7030409@voskuil.org>
	<CABm2gDqM6q24tPEBKSHbbVQu-mvfV37PNc4hD=VjyRHk2jujZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<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>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:29:16 -0600
Message-ID: <CABaSBay6DZdvbfXG=jwxNkWtcZVjhw7Bi6Ro1e3mLTmCWdn8zQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>, 
	Bryan Bishop <bryan@ledgerx.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e62e6a134f050f115e7e
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

--001a11c2e62e6a134f050f115e7e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Adam Back <adam@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 correctness for the existing implementation. These
plans are no secret and are publicly discussed, but I think it would be
instrumental to outsiders if the correctness plans and ongoing progress
could be mentioned whenever a warning is made about unjustified and
dangerous Bitcoin consensus rewrite attempts.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

--001a11c2e62e6a134f050f115e7e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
at, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>&gt;</s=
pan> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">That its highly complex to ma=
intain strict consensus between bitcoin versions, does not justify consensu=
s rewrite experiments</blockquote></div><br>Correct. However, those mainten=
ance costs absolutely do justify working towards formal proofs of correctne=
ss for the existing implementation. These plans are no secret and are publi=
cly discussed, but I think it would be instrumental to outsiders if the cor=
rectness plans and ongoing progress could be mentioned whenever a warning i=
s made about unjustified and dangerous Bitcoin consensus rewrite attempts.<=
br><br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">- Bryan<br><a href=3D"http://heybryan=
.org/">http://heybryan.org/</a><br>1 512 203 0507</div>
</div></div>

--001a11c2e62e6a134f050f115e7e--