Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D3E61301 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:05:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:54 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from comm0.conformal.com (comm0.conformal.com [204.124.83.141]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FB28230 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:05:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.32.100] (cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com [24.243.251.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by comm0.conformal.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CD77B6C9E7 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 10:59:23 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <55E5CB5C.2020405@conformal.com> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 10:59:24 -0500 From: Dave Collins User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <602b978abcedd92fbed85f305d9d7bfe@cock.li> <55E4B8C9.5030606@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> <5A3D7824-F1E3-421B-A32A-0EF21DD215BD@gmx.com> <5b7c2ba6e785e59595c2ee9a4596f097@cock.li> In-Reply-To: <5b7c2ba6e785e59595c2ee9a4596f097@cock.li> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HDb6NDNCMOKG7L9DfPbW4fqBqs3rKv0Mm" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange 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: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 16:05:19 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --HDb6NDNCMOKG7L9DfPbW4fqBqs3rKv0Mm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd be interested to know about these supposed btcd mainnet forks that have occurred due to a consensus failure since it came out of alpha. I'll go ahead and save you some research time - there hasn't been one. I'm not claiming there will never be one as that would be just as foolish as claiming Bitcoin Core won't have any more either. As you alluded to, there was a _potential_ instance found due to fuzzing which prompted a thorough audit of the code base. It was fixed before any problems occurred and resulted in improved test coverage in Bitcoin Core as well. On the other hand, Bitcoin Core has had actual forks on mainnet during the same period. I'm not casting stones at Bitcoin Core here, because as I've said many times, none of us are perfect. No matter how careful everyone is, it is bound to happen from time to time. Until this community decides to get serious about facing the reality that an infrastructure built on a single implementation with no real disaster prevention measures for unintentional incompatibilities between different versions of that implementation is incredibly fragile, there will continue to be more unintentional hard forks regardless of the existence of alternative implementations. It has not ended poorly by any means. It has already led to several improvements such as improved test coverage and more robust and modular code. On 9/1/2015 6:11 AM, Monarch via bitcoin-dev wrote: > That would be incredibly foolish given the history, where even heroic > attempts at making consensus compatible re-implementations have ended > rather poorly. bitcoin-ruby and btcd have collectively had numerous > consensus failures, some only recently found by fuzzing the scripting > environment. There are more failures than publicly disclosed, and > almost any failure can be leveraged to split the network and steal > money. Ethereum attempted to create four clients, written to a > defined specification, and even with all the money in the world has > managed to have numerous consensus failures due to misunderstanding or > implementation. --HDb6NDNCMOKG7L9DfPbW4fqBqs3rKv0Mm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJV5ctdAAoJELiQTZ2ck9HypAUQAOHf97TDDLpT7y3Mp0rsnjaX bqm7uI5sv0+r9w8rOmL1jgOpN+kLwFaceNjR3+XoflbsGA0NOQ+yiewg3k1UuoFS BCaFDf5cNmXgOGdeo5o/Yvt/2WZKsnYp+Jv8D4FbHh2IiqTSwhrmAeQomwfm12LC LIhETqQ6mjb+1PcOTiNBfqfA53/8ha4SXxaQrNwV63WelWNDm4XoLzcMZwcGTtrd e83fHwVSbg2JkJu1NQ/9V/O4aOPgkE3kIIhl7tWmzclV3ordM1fXn3Vt1ema4EB2 tLNd9okoYCrX9ioKfM6wgpvSBK/A1ypr5WDOgknwWsbtRO6slsBJa4U/7L1DZA/x 8CXkbztSrJDboawBZ05CzZz05DWoZ4RIxdwtiTltU/qd7mTzPMag4rsI9nXS8Bpx bI3fdGyLDko97RjEpY6my5/PB4n6Y0UtTboNoeIqkgbmmVKbl/wHHvhJW61nA4ND LXCG4P8p1DUzCRhXY5YNXa8as2JFIM+DJItnGReTL7PrGet2QMUsJiESqV0ik1G6 Aixbde+cAHpdyooQUVJRo5PJJD+j1Xn5Vum20ZTd1q3e8DXjyFndWM4foB6GIH05 9xD02LpaK47vUgMDFLeN/rw0tH7zcn5833jIBsXlQIZqgflEq2oVEtBxxQWKxcJJ PeXtfKqerU5JVbg2jcHi =iTbP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HDb6NDNCMOKG7L9DfPbW4fqBqs3rKv0Mm--