Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01EC026C for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:44:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81624153 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.0.2] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 446FB574C0 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:44:30 +0000 (UTC) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <55B723EA.7010700@voskuil.org> <55B939CF.1080903@voskuil.org> <3390F712-879A-46E9-ABCD-D35B51190304@bitsofproof.com> From: Matt Corallo X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55D611FC.6010305@mattcorallo.com> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:44:28 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3390F712-879A-46E9-ABCD-D35B51190304@bitsofproof.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Libconsensus separated repository (was Bitcoin Core and hard forks) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:44:32 -0000 I dont think a libconsensus would have any kind of networking layer, nor is C++ an antique tool set (hopefully libconsensus can avoid a boost dependency, though thats not antique either). Ideally it would have a simple API to give it blocks and a simple API for it to inform you of what the current chain is. If you really want to get fancy maybe it has pluggable block storage, too, but I dont see why you couldnt use this in ~any client? On 08/20/15 08:35, Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Every re-implementation, re-factoring even copy-paste introduces a risk of disagreement, > but also open the chance of doing the work better, in the sense of software engineering. > >> On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:06, Jorge Timón wrote: >> >> >> But the goal is not reimplementing the consensus rules but rather >> extract them from Bitcoin Core so that nobody needs to re-implement >> them again. > > > > My goal is different. Compatibility with Bitcoin is important as I also want to deal with Bitcoins, > but it is also imperative to be able to create and serve other block chains with other rules and for those > I do not want to carry on the legacy of an antique tool set and a spaghetti style. > > Bits of Proof uses scala (akka networking), java (api service), c++ (leveledb and now libconsensus) > and I am eager to integrate secp256k1 (c) as soon as part of consensus. The choices were > made because each piece appears best in what they do. > > Tamas Blummer > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >