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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1XmiE1-0003Xj-BH
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:01:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.175; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XmiE0-0004p5-JD
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:01:09 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f175.google.com with SMTP id h3so12624654igd.14
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 07 Nov 2014 04:01:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.149.203 with SMTP id x194mr12094970iod.22.1415361663341;
Fri, 07 Nov 2014 04:01:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.249.170 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 04:01:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAP63atZv_WJX3Ev6HirVVbZdjn6oayqMfjFDj657TG4VKdL9Nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141106213215.GA12918@savin.petertodd.org>
<A53D2C60-1D6A-4796-9776-3AF396BEC9F1@bitsofproof.com>
<545BF0C2.3030201@bluematt.me>
<CAJHLa0NTj6m4JpHx3+nWtYVV1Zpwf-FaxiyFX9DR821cQYVqsg@mail.gmail.com>
<545BFAD6.1000504@riseup.net>
<20141106232649.GD26859@savin.petertodd.org>
<545C0617.7020300@riseup.net>
<20141107000310.GA6532@savin.petertodd.org>
<B29D4E11-E69E-49DE-9E4C-741DDA01B352@bitsofproof.com>
<20141107084810.GA7878@savin.petertodd.org>
<CAP63atZv_WJX3Ev6HirVVbZdjn6oayqMfjFDj657TG4VKdL9Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:01:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCtXDwPitrL-O-E5xMKq0HDri4zLdcDBoZQ+00ee63Tbg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment_Elbaz?= <clem.ds@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1XmiE0-0004p5-JD
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The difficulty of writing consensus
critical code: the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:01:09 -0000
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Cl=C3=A9ment Elbaz <clem.ds@gmail.com> wro=
te:
> Thinking out loud here : would it make sense to separate the consensus co=
de
> into some kind of "Bitcoin Kernel" (similar to the Linux Kernel) project
> that could be used by anyone ?
Yes, we're moving in that direction. First with a script verification
library in 0.10, which will be extended to other parts of the
consensus by 0.11 and after that.
Wladimir
|
