Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VZ6C8-0006Ye-Qa for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:42:24 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.45; envelope-from=allen.piscitello@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f45.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VZ6C4-0001lq-Gs for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:42:24 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id z12so1478004wgg.12 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:42:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.90.70 with SMTP id bu6mr3223664wib.45.1382564534264; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.85.112 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:42:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <791a727f-2188-4848-bd77-ea733c8c5c2c@me.com> <201310211947.59640.luke@dashjr.org> <52661DB7.7040805@250bpm.com> <52662AA1.5050509@250bpm.com> <52677CF7.9070609@250bpm.com> <20131023194039.GB31497@petertodd.org> <52682C24.30700@250bpm.com> <20131023202731.GA31783@petertodd.org> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:42:14 -0500 Message-ID: From: Allen Piscitello To: Bitcoin Development Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043be27af1ac7404e96f6351 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: doubleclick.net] -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 (allen.piscitello[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1VZ6C4-0001lq-Gs Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:42:25 -0000 --f46d043be27af1ac7404e96f6351 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think formalizing the specification could go a long way and encouraging alternate implementations is going to be the best way to reduce unexpected small bugs having a bad effect except on the "buggy" node. That being said, it's a huge chicken and egg problem. No one wants to go off the reference client since it could lead to working on a forked chain as a miner or having bad data as a client. I don't know if there is a good way to try to take small pieces, get consensus, possibly have some type of universal test cases and running on testnet that would solve the problem. I wouldn't mind taking on parts of this when I have time, specifically transactions/scripting. Obviously if there are better qualified people who are interested, have at it! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:05:56PM +0200, Martin Sustrik wrote: > >> On 23/10/13 21:40, Peter Todd wrote: > >> > >> >The reference implementation is the specification - the "specification" > >> >on the wiki is best thought of as a set of Coles Notes on the real > >> >specification. If you don't already understand that and the nuance of > >> >that statement you should assume the protocol is fixed in stone and > >> >doesn't evolve at all; that statement is not quite true, but it's very > >> >close to the truth. > >> > >> Does that imply that the notes are deliberately obscured to force > >> everyone to check the source code? > > > > What's on the wiki is mostly the work of people who aren't working on > > the reference implementation, so no, you can't say that. > > Indeed, I know of few people who are familiar with the source code > that use the wiki. > > I do think that is a pity. The openness and transparency of the > protocol is essential to trusting the system (and shouldn't be limited > to those digging through the source code), and for that reason alone I > think it needs to be well-documented. > > I also do agree with earlier comments, that due to the nature of the > consensus problem Bitcoin solves, it will always be the network that > dictates what the actual rules are - anything else can result in > inresolvable forks. If a "formal" specification were written, and we > would find out that the majority of nodes on the network deviate from > it in a subtle way, those nodes would be buggy in the sense that they > aren't doing what was expected, but it would be the specification that > is incorrect for not following the rules of the network. In short, > consistency is more important than correctness, and for that reason, > writing alternate implementation will always be hard and dangerous. > > However, I do not think that making it hard to find information about > the details of the system is the way to go. Alternate implementations > are likely inevitable, and in the long run probably a win for the > ecosystem. If effort is put into accurately describing the rules, it > should indeed carry a strong notice about it being descriptive rather > than normative. > > If someone is willing to work on that, I am (and likely many people in > #bitcoin-dev are) available for any questions about the protocol and > its semantics. > > -- > Pieter > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > October Webinars: Code for Performance > Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most > from > the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --f46d043be27af1ac7404e96f6351 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think formalizing the specification could go a long way = and encouraging alternate implementations is going to be the best way to re= duce unexpected small bugs having a bad effect except on the "buggy&qu= ot; node.

That being said, it's a huge chicken and egg problem. = =A0No one wants to go off the reference client since it could lead to worki= ng on a forked chain as a miner or having bad data as a client.
<= br>
I don't know if there is a good way to try to take small pie= ces, get consensus, possibly have some type of universal test cases and run= ning on testnet that would solve the problem.

I wouldn't mind taking on parts of this when I have time, specifically = transactions/scripting. =A0Obviously if there are better qualified people w= ho are interested, have at it!

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Pieter Wuille <= span dir=3D"ltr"><pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:05:56PM +0200, Martin Sustrik wrote:
>> On 23/10/13 21:40, Peter Todd wrote:
>>
>> >The reference implementation is the specification - the "= specification"
>> >on the wiki is best thought of as a set of Coles Notes on the = real
>> >specification. If you don't already understand that and th= e nuance of
>> >that statement you should assume the protocol is fixed in ston= e and
>> >doesn't evolve at all; that statement is not quite true, b= ut it's very
>> >close to the truth.
>>
>> Does that imply that the notes are deliberately obscured to force<= br> >> everyone to check the source code?
>
> What's on the wiki is mostly the work of people who aren't wor= king on
> the reference implementation, so no, you can't say that.

Indeed, I know of few people who are familiar with the source code that use the wiki.

I do think that is a pity. The openness and transparency of the
protocol is essential to trusting the system (and shouldn't be limited<= br> to those digging through the source code), and for that reason alone I
think it needs to be well-documented.

I also do agree with earlier comments, that due to the nature of the
consensus problem Bitcoin solves, it will always be the network that
dictates what the actual rules are - anything else can result in
inresolvable forks. If a "formal" specification were written, and= we
would find out that the majority of nodes on the network deviate from
it in a subtle way, those nodes would be buggy in the sense that they
aren't doing what was expected, but it would be the specification that<= br> is incorrect for not following the rules of the network. In short,
consistency is more important than correctness, and for that reason,
writing alternate implementation will always be hard and dangerous.

However, I do not think that making it hard to find information about
the details of the system is the way to go. Alternate implementations
are likely inevitable, and in the long run probably a win for the
ecosystem. If effort is put into accurately describing the rules, it
should indeed carry a strong notice about it being descriptive rather
than normative.

If someone is willing to work on that, I am (and likely many people in
#bitcoin-dev are) available for any questions about the protocol and
its semantics.

--
Pieter

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most fr= om
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register &g= t;
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam= pad/clk?id=3D60135991&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--f46d043be27af1ac7404e96f6351--