1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E1BC955
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:27:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com
[209.85.217.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 770B889
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:27:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbbsx3 with SMTP id sx3so13194645lbb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
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
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=HD5QH4TG++Z3pc9/YBye9VvGt8SV+oZeVLV8gpcjZuU=;
b=evBGBo0CR9bsigTI2Yn1OVLhqvif4yZDOFYkXvNfUCZVgpgEx0iQNLa4ozuMk7HUzk
5YOT8csj099ptx0AQQ2RjH5VvayIBfJC0J7YtV7foT/ZKU73jND8X7Sddbu12bH5j2GA
HuYMVGDp+yC65VmyUDV8hSrrePnlRDio1uMr2mYkMjTPJ9RSbtUGbIdGw9LJ7m+e4QID
nzAzfpc92B1XYDWQmcllUP1qf9Aa4abkM5G2KLkc72AeuJuprfIzpRntrhx/sZchD57h
Lls3quoMgzhcjOSASvpWAhti1uWbQu7KpDfCVQXLob0YjWp69pXqHsub9cmnlxcqqsiZ
yRxw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn79uxONrC1pOqIf/uwoJdwNLMXvetqo1SvLKJ/KDeYfYVxQHKqILwAU82hxkYCOYKI5p+I
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.21.196 with SMTP id x4mr46074lae.117.1440026871989; Wed,
19 Aug 2015 16:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55D50C15.9020402@voskuil.org>
References: <CALqxMTFkgGx0FxMiZ77inOZSs_+TQ88Wpj-q-c12COkO9tP4gQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzv+cKPY9wrAzbk5pgQJS0=R9KWu-+EuppM=nmXs8RHxYg@mail.gmail.com>
<20150819182010.GB12306@muck>
<CADJgMzskK9iNoRzVr0BtK+XH-x2w5mGZtBiieQpwcGevnHRjGg@mail.gmail.com>
<55D4D9C3.5070004@riseup.net>
<C47D37EE-AE42-4175-AD6B-F6FD0841287B@gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpAOQim63Q7r9r-Pv-K+FqizgDHNUmQ7uheGMuMt-e2QA@mail.gmail.com>
<E3D72CF4-3D1C-4235-87F9-A035AFF28C27@gmail.com>
<CABm2gDrefdHeYWF2y_o7A9NxRssC=ddHqY--ExxLv00TS4ShKQ@mail.gmail.com>
<55D50C15.9020402@voskuil.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 01:27:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpzAL9Rci8m60ruhHeDXx3gvGgPHMbupZKUZA1wys-AiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Libbitcoin <libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:27:54 -0000
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
> [cross-posted to libbitcoin]
>
> On 08/19/2015 03:00 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote:> On Wed, =
Aug
> 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit
> policies=E2=80=A6and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly=
. And
> we should find a way to communicate the difference succinctly and
> clearly to laypeople (which is something I think the XT opponents have
> been horrible at doing so far).
>>
>> I think that effort is in progress (again, much slower that I would
>> like it to be) and it's called libconsensus.
>> Once we have libconsensus Bitcoin Core it's just another
>> implementation (even if it is the reference one) and it's not "the
>> specification of the consensus rules" which is a "privileged" position
>> that brings all sorts of misunderstandings and problems (the block
>> size debate is just one example).
>
> Jorge,
>
> I applaud your efforts and objectives WRT libconsensus independence. But
> as you know I differ with you on this point:
>
>> Once we have libconsensus Bitcoin Core it's just another
>> implementation
>
> I do not consider Bitcoin Core just another implementation as long as
> libconsensus is built directly out of the bitcoind repository. It's a
> finer point, but an important one. Eric makes this point emphatically as
> well:
>
>>> But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit
> policies...and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly.
>
> As you have implied, it's not likely to happen in the Bitcoin Core repo.
> Taking a dependency on Bitcoin Core is a metaphorical deal with the
> devil from our perspective. So my question is, how do you expect other
> implementations to transition off of that repository (and commit
> policies)? Or do you expect the dependency to be perpetual?
No, as previously explained, once libconsensus is complete it can be
moved to a separate repository like libsecp256k1.
At first it will need to be a subtree/subrepository of Bitcoin Core
(like libsecp256k1 currently is), but I still don't undesrtand how
that can possibly be a problem for alternative implementations (they
can use a subtree as well if they want to). Depending on a separated
libconsensus doesn't "make Bitcoin Core a dependency" more than
depending on libsecp256k1 currently does.
> In our discussion leading up to libbitcoin building libbitcoin-consensus
> we disagreed on whether intentional hard forks would (or even could)
> happen. I think that issue is now settled. So my question remains how do
> stakeholders (users/miners) maintain consensus when it's their
> individual intent (the first objective of libconsensus), and diverge
> when intended (which a direct dependency on libconsensus makes harder)?
> IMO it's unreasonable to operate as if this won't happen, given that it h=
as.
I believe the simplest option would be to fork the libconsensus
project and do the schism/controversial/contentious hardfork there.
But of course modifying libconsensus will be much easier than
modifying Bitcoin Core (if anything, because the amount of code is
much smaller).
> There are a very small number of implementations that rely on consensus
> (fewer that aren't also forks of Bitcoin Core). I think it's time we
> discuss how to work together to achieve our mutual goal. I assume you
> have been in contact with all of us. If you would like to facilitate
> this I'd be happy to join in an offline discussion.
Unfortunately I only directly contacted libbitcoin because I was
subscribed to the list at the time (maybe I'm still subscribed, not
really sure).
The other attempts to get feedback from other alternative
implementations have been just mostly-ignored threads in bitcoin-dev.
So, no, I cannot facilitate such a discussion, but I'm more than happy
to collaborate to achieve our mutual goal.
|
