Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YN2j5-0003lq-2k for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 17:11:23 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.148.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.148.101; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail148101.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail148101.authsmtp.com ([62.13.148.101]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1YN2j3-0002Lx-Ka for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 17:11:23 +0000 Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t1FHB6kc087451; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 17:11:06 GMT Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com [75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t1FHB1mn092325 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 15 Feb 2015 17:11:03 GMT Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 12:11:01 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: Adam Back Message-ID: <20150215171100.GC21269@savin.petertodd.org> References: <54D0414F.6030806@voskuil.org> <54DE7601.4070509@voskuil.org> <54DF07A5.1060004@voskuil.org> <54DF2E80.5060506@voskuil.org> <20150214131320.GA26731@savin.petertodd.org> <3D4F2E23-CADE-4FE7-B960-3F79815E868C@bitsofproof.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 9fac6891-b535-11e4-9f74-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR bgdMdwcUHlAWAgsB AmMbWlNeUVx7WWc7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr VklWR1pVCwQmRR13 fmwfD0dyfgdFens+ ZEFgWXAVVRIrJkB1 S09JR2gFYHphaTUb TUkOcAdJcANIexZF O1F8UScOLwdSbGoL NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDOTh0 fR0dBzQzHEsKDw8y MxchK1hUXFkYKQ0I PAlpanYZORUTFgZZ Hkd4YmdiLkUGXCoq RQheXEMYDG8VQDwU C1UmJQVLSiRbQTYQ XA0cE1kXDDheUSNM RWEcOgAA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YN2j3-0002Lx-Ka Cc: Bitcoin Dev , libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?) 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: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 17:11:23 -0000 --YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:04:49AM -0800, Adam Back wrote: > Strongly with Peter on this. That its highly complex to maintain strict > consensus between bitcoin versions, does not justify consensus rewrite > experiments; it tells you that the risk is exponentially worse and people > should use and rally around libconsensus. It's worth remembering that one of the goals in writing - or to be more precise, separating - libconsensus from the Bitcoin Core codebase is to make it easier to maintain strict consensus between Bitcoin Core versions. > I would advise any bitcoin ecosystem part, wallet, user to not use softwa= re > with consensus protocol rw-writes nor variants, you WILL lose money. >=20 > You could view bitcoin as a digital signature algorithm speculatively > tinkering with the algo is highly prone to binary failure mode and > unbounded funds loss. >=20 > Want to be clear this is not a political nor emotive issue. It is a > critical technical requirement for security if users of software people > write. The necessity of it isn't a political or emotive issue, but the consequences are definitely political. Just not in the way that most of the ecosystem appears to think. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000016b6444e463c7d92da1579360c5f71d4fbd3dab45d13990a --YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJU4NMgXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMGZmYjdhNTc2YjdhYTUyMzZjNTNmNTFlYzA3Y2NmMTc0 MDY3YmVlZDMzOTgwNTYvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfu6DAf+OqGq0FLQWkhIrvCwo6+Ar248 yZUjyTNh4M5J1ecDsSUQf/DEWOcm1LV9li6QZ/XAvXHQ1GlbJlslQF+x48WxLQYU yH9T8fmdQqLiPkI7AFOi8rfd2phfjN0/KTl1n72IwaD6z3nyX0N8sSQiaxlk+q98 54TTeRQnp3bPWfHkdmnGuRzMCbTGWvKr6QvEUYhJ7BwuZ1KlvJMNMe5J9u/Skt18 Af88y/slksbgFu+qrUq3PLr6XBKXvL3vAsLSeFNG2KvgBfCOGj4IkgVheTAWl6zn v+JWqPEamEH/vYOmQQMANwblbsHkbEDFu3tJhlcY+CKlJJijjhLoNVfa1jobbg== =LtD3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ--