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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WzQ2m-00071k-ER
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:41:48 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WzQ2k-0005xk-Le
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:41:48 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id uq10so4662558igb.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.141.164 with SMTP id rp4mr1826837igb.20.1403613700717;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0sT3KTPatwNFO5gjwShkGQt=h6PjX-3Df2U9oXa=3JUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC1+kJNjcPkaHiR8mzofwXE4+4UX5nmxX5Q3rZv37v-K40p1Tw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJDVBQVu8yH9jLu_rQmk=dsJuMUctT-iK0zzOJRYgE8k9w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC1+kJOQ2uBo2peYKZJyPSQL6qzk6Yu-cF-tPs3GzVS6cAc53w@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1bNs4ahMzd7AfSH3P39Cx1rkmCkjnOMOM9T2Anr5wVOw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC1+kJMn3p5H6A8GGiuF56d411zC4qsTomuy7A5e0+OQT78FGQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJADNS6zy--sk3W3q21inuSB5jkkRku14vxLXDXKf=vkvw@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0sT3KTPatwNFO5gjwShkGQt=h6PjX-3Df2U9oXa=3JUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:41:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCKWqCd37iFdPeUKX3FZOEeWf7JXnaRzyJ4g17O=Xm9YQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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: 1WzQ2k-0005xk-Le
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Plans to separate wallet from core
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: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:41:48 -0000
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> priority. So a single unified program that just figures it out automatically
> rather than expecting users to assemble a bag of parts seems a goal worth
> striving for.
As I've said before -- and I think we disagree here - I like moving
towards a bag of parts of specialized tools, maintained by people that
specialize in those tools, instead of a single project that aims to do
and know everything. This encourages experimentation and makes
competition possible and I think that is healthy in this space.
Bitcoin has a strict need for consensus in the block chain format,
scripting system and validation. Outside of those, innovation should
be possible without any gatekeeper bottleneck or even widespread
agreement. Wallets, what data to store on disk, what indices to
maintain. But even P2P message extensions, as long as it doesn't
interfere with the rest of the network.
After an experiment is successful it could always be merged into
bitcoin core. But then the 'what-ifers' have less ammo, as it has been
tested in the real world.
For user convenience it's still possible to package pre-assembled
bags. But that doesn't need to figure into how things are developed.
Wladimir
|
