Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5615E71 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:28:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com (mail-vk0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C90FB13F for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:28:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkas68 with SMTP id s68so14485638vka.2 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 03:28:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon_cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YWQiJ7Mwzv3QdzkgMpBlp6T0ydZraxOSqRLXX/1s5rQ=; b=Oy3cmSczZMyv18KsZxWKCl9IubPH2zbWz4j0LX1WZsDj8fxg6UTMlg7VEmxrIGlFRW hbhxgmY7UwLH2j8C2WCCyGXLjKlAUJ9W6TQqOLbLvCRIHSrc87bPs+e0TJW2xFvhXGF7 Ru4LuWBhfHxt9KDmSTfE7UM/R5u3KQioTBQ2BUNTrIOxW15wqSG12NbnLAsg7ZNo0B5H FM3hEBJ2QwhtYCyNnepsoWMii2Zf8GZu9T3vAPtcE43ZmvKajKzGeoGQpb3oHQC8jveq NpBQWJ/jD3pVk/Z27td/M76HA9MYtd8Wfwb7iTusC3IrYldND79cpSRJioCHWfQb5HY4 uYmw== 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; bh=YWQiJ7Mwzv3QdzkgMpBlp6T0ydZraxOSqRLXX/1s5rQ=; b=i0tif0FVVySb7eoXFI45VOvQUTA7cw9bCDBNnwRIbs0dEAlcTCrOHzHYe4/SL6KcBE i4e5WF7TRV7yqyhMgX0Dggm4kIFYAl9Zo62vp/TClWUPVt48PY1PIxtVbuuUkwVeB2js p6f7kyS4juEn71BiOg6b2mLFhOXWvuP5RYd9a6GRabiTk2/hZRTYl+IRJz+kJEekZsW2 93iGSLMo3lWHCsd+0Xt32RHUWQvTtoojklvZU2lnpqBWKAod3JHkUU8mgNS+xx47acZ3 ZNluMrEMFhYwYkJOnCG1FuMC3PF7jpBcNGPvmG0BD9Rh/371uPj5xpSxm4xAGz4a9+WO Fj+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlneEPe+V9WvRFp1mf+r2rFkH0lmVncQ060fXGhoLewPiPs7jiZ5GT+ytN30j+c3iJS3cSr MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.173.73 with SMTP id w70mr7301409vke.140.1447586924990; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 03:28:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.132.147 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 03:28:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <5631C363.5060705@neomailbox.net> <201510290803.52734.luke@dashjr.org> <5632DE33.7030600@bitcartel.com> <3CB90C47-293E-4C18-A381-E5203483D68F@gmx.com> <571D9B7F-077D-4B80-B577-1C18FF2ECF31@gmx.com> <6DAD1D38-A156-4507-B506-BF66F26E6594@gmx.com> <13D7C936-4D2E-4BAC-AC61-3DA80581C946@gmx.com> <2C8EBBD8-51B7-4F47-AFFA-3870DBD6C4EA@gmx.com> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 12:28:44 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Peter R Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 , Gregory Maxwell , telemaco Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [patch] Switching Bitcoin Core to sqlite db 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: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:28:46 -0000 Going back on topic, I believe libconsensus shouldn't depend on any particular database because assuming it will continue to be stateless (the current libbitcoinconsensus is stateless) end therefore has no storage. I know some people disagree in various degrees. At the same time, the parts of the consensus rules verification that depends on storage has not been encapsulated out to libbitcoinconsensus yet, and I agree that changing the database is unnecessarily risky at this point. Even when the consensus rules are encapsulated, that doesn't mean that Bitcoin Core should be DB agnostic or that we can guarantee that it will follow the longest valid chain with databases that have not been tested.