Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.95 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.95; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149095.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 07:47:30 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <20141215124730.GA8321@savin.petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ibTvN161/egqYuK8"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Recent EvalScript() changes mean
	CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY can't be merged
Precedence: list


--ibTvN161/egqYuK8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

BtcDrak was working on rebasing my CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY=B9 patch to master a=
 few
days ago and found a fairly large design change that makes merging it curre=
ntly
impossible. Pull-req #4890=B2, specifically commit c7829ea7, changed the
EvalScript() function to take an abstract SignatureChecker object, removing=
 the
txTo and nIn arguments that used to contain the transaction the script was =
in
and the txin # respectively. CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY needs txTo to obtain the
nLockTime field of the transaction, and it needs nIn to obtain the nSequenc=
e of
the txin.

We need to fix this if CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is to be merged.

Secondly, that this change was made, and the manner in which is was made, i=
s I
think indicative of a development process that has been taking significant
risks with regard to refactoring the consensus critical codebase. I know I
personally have had a hard time keeping up with the very large volume of co=
de
being moved and changed for the v0.10 release, and I know BtcDrak - who is
keeping Viacoin up to date with v0.10 - has also had a hard time giving the
changes reasonable review. The #4890 pull-req in question had no ACKs at al=
l,
and only two untested utACKS, which I find worrying for something that made
significant consensus critical code changes.

While it would be nice to have a library encapsulating the consensus code, =
this
shouldn't come at the cost of safety, especially when the actual users of t=
hat
library or their needs is still uncertain. This is after all a multi-billion
project where a simple fork will cost miners alone tens of thousands of dol=
lars
an hour; easily much more if it results in users being defrauded. That's al=
so
not taking into account the significant negative PR impact and loss of trus=
t. I
personally would recommend *not* upgrading to v0.10 due to these issues.

A much safer approach would be to keep the code changes required for a
consensus library to only simple movements of code for this release, accept
that the interface to that library won't be ideal, and wait until we have
feedback from multiple opensource projects with publicly evaluatable code on
where to go next with the API.

1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki
2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4890

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001b18a596ecadd07c0e49620fb71b16f9e41131df9fc52fa6

--ibTvN161/egqYuK8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=LgXC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ibTvN161/egqYuK8--