Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E214D69 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:24:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16295FF for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:24:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wmvv187 with SMTP id v187so233082491wmv.1 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:24:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thinlink_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Iu7mAcJUx5hzltRIvay7XSlTzM5IIdsy7ygvpnVlqNs=; b=dqoMJoiHPot/UYoX3cFW2G2qqrVYlD1aVYZzOCHyMNKV8BRhbvgM+qH6iEyx+Plw+6 Wc8lpNQOZxI/L+Qg34+2Bi4OwyjjMcV4ovhwk8cCioYZhDKMD5JGF6pMg9cHjEepjSuG j16Mt2v5KcAhCsddjrtWfflAnglMT6bTL6ZBRMfrIMsXFRMkFpc5o2elx7nHZu3aIpOR HXqwC5L0O9ccZiXIZbZ/EM4aB/ca837wuzaXaEZF6Jt8zQjeMzPLyx/CCG/M7dYkAmjk 7fyvs6zeoVjoh1SXgsG37aPZDQe947EDBUf3thzX4T2wBca1+7RXpCICW1+oGY8P7naT F5gw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Iu7mAcJUx5hzltRIvay7XSlTzM5IIdsy7ygvpnVlqNs=; b=OKXBe3lASoOpwfwY3zJMMPwuG5jMIznCwbtN7lcfV9x+zbJd6mixVYtc5UU81ksEcH KqyE1835lFV2iG/8M2E5JSipKfMJGjvuP1pPyJ7TdtH1kALUSNAcZ/x7oAxqFRm+nR9X smjN881DuTNWQc0V+yZscyr87JeHkGbi2m2ZHUn4OrWdkhhM+Ayf+ui+vgg0H0Ex9zx/ UMIGAOJDwuyygjWlU6s6h9+chu2dWw7joU0YpiYgCQlJheTs0thS66tVQZGaz/NbKn0e 4H51JJeQGEe0EC9adPjYVdBpiju8Vg/gMqJ3sFqYjs8e9NfMUAEzKnORBSZ0QcV1ZB3p WvFw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkGT3uTTmV3UwDOb+I19dYfDewH4P3rL5oBEuRgUejv/gtfdOo7NWxXlAYRkrfd6TJiYz4N MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.132.18 with SMTP id g18mr3262951wmd.64.1447773882582; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.156.130 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.156.130 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:24:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <0BABD098-33AB-4638-928B-F2D189FA2F8A@bitsofproof.com> References: <5631C363.5060705@neomailbox.net> <201510290803.52734.luke@dashjr.org> <5632DE33.7030600@bitcartel.com> <3CB90C47-293E-4C18-A381-E5203483D68F@gmx.com> <571D9B7F-077D-4B80-B577-1C18FF2ECF31@gmx.com> <6DAD1D38-A156-4507-B506-BF66F26E6594@gmx.com> <13D7C936-4D2E-4BAC-AC61-3DA80581C946@gmx.com> <2C8EBBD8-51B7-4F47-AFFA-3870DBD6C4EA@gmx.com> <0BABD098-33AB-4638-928B-F2D189FA2F8A@bitsofproof.com> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:24:42 -0800 Message-ID: From: Tom Harding To: Tamas Blummer Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11444ce0fcbe570524be1f42 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:32:41 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Gregory Maxwell , telemaco Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [patch] Switching Bitcoin Core to sqlite db X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:24:45 -0000 --001a11444ce0fcbe570524be1f42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Nov 17, 2015 5:54 AM, "Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Isolating storage from the rest of consensus code is technically desirable, but implementations using different storage will be unlikely bug-for-bug compatible, > hence able to split the network. The problem with unknown bugs is you don't know how serious they are. A serious bug could itself be devastating. --001a11444ce0fcbe570524be1f42 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Nov 17, 2015 5:54 AM, "Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev= " <bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Isolating storage from the rest of consensus code is technically desir= able, but implementations using different storage will be unlikely bug-for-= bug compatible,
> hence able to split the network.

The problem with unknown bugs is you don't know how seri= ous they are.=C2=A0 A serious bug could itself be devastating.

--001a11444ce0fcbe570524be1f42--