1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
|
Return-Path: <laanwj@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DB2B282
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:43:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com
[209.85.212.180])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDFBC14D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:43:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so146388487wib.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 01:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
:content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding
:in-reply-to; bh=hwnAA73CpuG8SMTRTHaR1AkANnbY19+XerVxvUTDpY0=;
b=DIFywu/duNZg7lYCrGKZiTeyST5+LUdNe4qltmf/cH5MpJTXwhTfT+SVKzSTyo6TtI
SdQ0voDSzor7YpIr9O4lYPpRLOPuKl3tz9cx8qzXGWaLoaINFOgp4+OTDLxHYlzBzTmh
HZLTSGMZIdE5jbtk3elAzT5TfcSft3wNd6XOUhcZqxGfuPnfz1DfG5faa6jzfoDriyhn
sUiD9daJgYo/72waFP/TktJc/7DH5LtqAps030nej+VoG7rsocaz0TLcCn6HfCG0g/7i
IGeVodG4MbaZiuyC0IX1oiv9nUjooLHhXRbpbRIwxV9xnhrHhhGf9WCZDLlTiShSEDX5
1Haw==
X-Received: by 10.180.73.200 with SMTP id n8mr32785810wiv.94.1438072996581;
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 01:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from amethyst.visucore.com (dhcp-089-098-228-253.chello.nl.
[89.98.228.253]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
w8sm32093034wja.15.2015.07.28.01.43.15
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 01:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:43:14 +0200
From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Jorge =?utf-8?B?VGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Message-ID: <20150728084312.GA29453@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <CABm2gDrApVuxF8DFf32V=pQhDKvvVfcDK=LeCXJ9h9o8CY+wNQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDrApVuxF8DFf32V=pQhDKvvVfcDK=LeCXJ9h9o8CY+wNQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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@lists.linuxfoundation.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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:43:18 -0000
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:30:06PM +0200, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think there were some misunderstandings in our previous conversation
> about this topic.
> I completely agree with having a separated repository for libconsensus
> (that's the whole point, alternative implementations can be
> consensus-safe by using it, and in the event of a schism fork[1], they
> can fork just that smaller project without having to relay on Bitcoin
> Core [satoshi] at all).
Indeed.
> But I thought you also wanted Bitcoin Core to use libconsensus instead
> of just having a subtree/subrepository like it currently does with
> libsecp256k1.
> I'm not sure if that would ever be accepted, but in any case we're
> certainly far away from that goal. Here are some things that need to
> happen first:
I don't see any reason why Bitcoin Core would not use the consensus library. Eating our own dogfood and such.
Biggest risk, as I've said before, is that the refactoring loading to a (more complete) consensus library will result in code that is no longer bug-for-bug compatible with previous versions, thus defeating its entire purpose and introducing fork risk.
If that can be avoided - for example by going from here to there using pure code moves, as you're trying to do - I'm all for it.
> 2) Finish libconsensus's API: expose more things than VerifyScript, at
> the very least, also expose VerifyTx, VerifyHeader and VerifyBlock.
> Feedback from alternative implementations like libbitcoin is extremely
> valuable here. Some related closed-for-now PRs:
Agreed.
> 3) Move libconsensus to a separate repository as a
> subtree/subrepository of Bitcoin Core.
If the rest is done, this is the easy part :)
> Unfortunately and ironically again, safer, small and incremental
> changes are less interesting for reviewers.
> For example, I've been trying to move consensus code to the consensus
> folder for a long time. The correctness of a MOVEONLY change is
> trivial to review for anyone who knows how to copy/paste in its
> favorite editor and how to use git diff, but will I ever get answers
> to my questions in [1]?
Code review capacity is still our greatest bottleneck.
And I don't see any way out of that, unfortunately.
> I know there's many people who really care about this, Cory Fields,
> Wladimir and Pieter Wuille to name a few have reviewed many of this
> changes (I've just got used to publicly whine about lack of review on
> this front and policy encapsulation [very related fronts] as an
> attempt to get some attention: not always, but begging for review
> actually works some times).
I do really care about this.
Wladimir
|
