Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YMi1Q-0004N6-Ci for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 19:04:56 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.54; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com ([209.85.192.54]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YMi1P-0003QS-01 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 19:04:56 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id z60so18040137qgd.13 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:04:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.146.87 with SMTP id 84mr10080938qhs.12.1423940689550; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:04:49 -0800 (PST) Sender: adam.back@gmail.com Received: by 10.96.150.233 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.96.150.233 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:04:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3D4F2E23-CADE-4FE7-B960-3F79815E868C@bitsofproof.com> References: <54CC0E1D.7030409@voskuil.org> <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> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:04:49 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WM7yoWuwE7SKkQlPnrgBS3Z5HYw Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Tamas Blummer Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113560c6fb64f9050f1106f7 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (adam.back[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YMi1P-0003QS-01 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: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 19:04:56 -0000 --001a113560c6fb64f9050f1106f7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. I would advise any bitcoin ecosystem part, wallet, user to not use software with consensus protocol rw-writes nor variants, you WILL lose money. 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. 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. Please promote this meme. Adam On Feb 14, 2015 6:24 AM, "Tamas Blummer" wrote: > Peter, > > You did not address me but libbitcoin. Since our story and your evaluatio= n > is probably similar, I chime in. > > On Feb 14, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > So stop wasting your time. Help get the consensus critical code out of > Bitcoin Core and into a stand-alone libconsensus library, > > > We have seen that the consensus critical code practically extends to > Berkley DB limits or OpenSSL laxness, therefore > it is inconceivable that a consensus library is not the same as Bitcoin > Core, less its P2P service rules, wallet and RPC server. > > > On Feb 14, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > > Or you can be stereotypical programmers and dick around on github for > the next ten years chasing stupid consensus bugs in code no-one uses. > > > > The Core code base is unfriendly to feature extensions because of its > criticality, legacy design and ancient technology. It is also a commodity > that the ecosystem takes for granted and free. > > I honestly admire the core team that works and progresses within these > limits and perception. > > I am not willing to work within the core=E2=80=99s legacy technology limi= ts. Does > it mean I am dicking around? I think not. > It was my way to go down the rabbit hole by re-digging it and I created > successful commercial products on the way. > > It is entirely rational for me to focus on innovation that uses the core > as a border router for this block chain. > > I am rather thankful for the ideas of the side chains, that enable > innovation that is no longer measured on unapologetic compatibility with = a > given code base, but its services to end user. > > Tamas Blummer > Bits of Proof > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, > sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is > your > hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought > leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take = a > look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --001a113560c6fb64f9050f1106f7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Strongly with Peter on this.=C2=A0 That its highly complex t= o maintain strict consensus between bitcoin versions, does not justify cons= ensus rewrite experiments; it tells you that the risk is exponentially wors= e and people should use and rally around libconsensus.

I would advise any bitcoin ecosystem part, wallet, user to n= ot use software with consensus protocol rw-writes nor variants, you WILL lo= se money.

You could view bitcoin as a digital signature algorithm spec= ulatively tinkering with the algo is highly prone to binary failure mode an= d unbounded funds loss.

Want to be clear this is not a political nor emotive issue. = It is a critical technical requirement for security if users of software pe= ople write.=C2=A0

Please promote this meme.

Adam

On Feb 14, 2015 6:24 AM, "Tamas Blummer&quo= t; <tamas@bitsofproof.com&g= t; wrote:
Peter,

You d= id not address me but libbitcoin. Since our story and your evaluation is pr= obably similar, I chime in.

On Feb 14, 2015, at 2:= 13 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

So = stop wasting your time. Help get the consensus critical code out of
Bitc= oin Core and into a stand-alone libconsensus library,

We have seen that the consensus critical code practically = extends to Berkley DB limits or OpenSSL laxness, therefore
it is = inconceivable that a consensus library is not the same as Bitcoin Core, les= s its P2P service rules, wallet and RPC server.

On Feb 14, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote= :

Or you can be stereotypical programmer= s and dick around on github for
the next ten years chasing stupid consen= sus bugs in code no-one uses.

The Core code base is unfriendly to feature extensions because = of its criticality, legacy design and ancient technology. It is also a comm= odity
that the ecosystem takes for granted and free.=C2=A0
<= div>
I honestly admire the core team that works and progresse= s within these limits and perception.

I am not wil= ling to work within the core=E2=80=99s legacy technology limits. Does it me= an I am dicking around? I think not.
It was my way to go down the= rabbit hole by re-digging it and I created successful commercial products = on the way.

It is entirely rational for me to focu= s on innovation that uses the core as a border router for this block chain.= =C2=A0

I am rather thankful for the ideas of the s= ide chains, that enable innovation that is no longer measured on unapologet= ic compatibility with a given code base, but its services to end user.

Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof


--------= ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is you= r
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a<= br> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______= ________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--001a113560c6fb64f9050f1106f7--