Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of dashjr.org
	designates 85.234.147.28 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=85.234.147.28; envelope-from=luke@dashjr.org;
	helo=zinan.dashjr.org; 
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 00:05:24 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.14.27-gentoo; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CABm2gDpReRty6TdfMDssjF27XgC_SYs_U__SFBNdsYW24Mzh8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150214131320.GA26731@savin.petertodd.org>
	<3D4F2E23-CADE-4FE7-B960-3F79815E868C@bitsofproof.com>
In-Reply-To: <3D4F2E23-CADE-4FE7-B960-3F79815E868C@bitsofproof.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201502150005.25183.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: 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

On Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:23:47 PM Tamas Blummer wrote:
> We have seen that the consensus critical code practically extends to
> Berkley DB limits or OpenSSL laxness, therefore it is inconceivable that a
> consensus library is not the same as Bitcoin Core, less its P2P service
> rules, wallet and RPC server.

You can describe 'A' from a group of A, B, C, D, E as "the group minus B, C, 
D, E", sure - but I don't see how this is relevant?

UTXO storage is indeed consensus critical, as you say, but it is a lot simpler 
to get right than the rest combined. Thus, the end goal is to have a 
libbitcoinconsensus with "the rest", and a (as of yet named) 
libbitcoincompleteconsensus that ties in the canonical UTXO storage. Ideally, 
software should use the latter when it is available, but if there is a strong 
reason to change UTXO storage, one can remain mostly-safe with just the 
former. I'm not sure why this topic is of relevance, though...

Luke