Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YOHqY-0002zN-27 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 03:32:14 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from nl.grid.coop ([50.7.166.116]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1YOHqW-0004lY-T1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 03:32:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) by nl.grid.coop with local; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:32:05 -0600 id 00000000000613CD.0000000054E55935.00006567 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:32:05 -0600 From: Troy Benjegerdes To: Tamas Blummer Message-ID: <20150219033205.GS14804@nl.grid.coop> References: <54DE7601.4070509@voskuil.org> <54DF07A5.1060004@voskuil.org> <54DF2E80.5060506@voskuil.org> <20150214131320.GA26731@savin.petertodd.org> <3D4F2E23-CADE-4FE7-B960-3F79815E868C@bitsofproof.com> <20150215170228.GB21269@savin.petertodd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1YOHqW-0004lY-T1 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 03:32:14 -0000 On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 06:13:06PM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > Yes you are dicking around. > > I thought I was clear, that I am using Bitcoin Core as border router talking to its P2P interface. > > The reimplementation of consensus code helped me to deeply understand the protocol, aids debugging > and now comes handy to create a side chain. The work that Tamas did re-implementing is probably one of the most valuable things he ever did. It would significantly improve the quality of the consensus code if this community would start treating it as a buggy & poorly defined proof-of-concept that just happens to actually run, rather than some holy scripture upon which we must never question (or change) I'm impressed by the secp256k1 work, and other modularity efforts, but at some point main.cpp needs to get untangled, and have some critical review if bitcoin wants to remain relevant. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer' hozer@hozed.org