path: root/97/55f4a02280a521bf9fd91385dc5e74ca9f4841

Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C9C71822
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:58:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com
	[209.85.212.170])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6C96121
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so78714998wic.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=wKhPNyQckVJZJXw4Jq80RHo0luSa2XLXjF2AmCL0AhM=;
	b=c2r4khO1hB61gUrwFgA+tx74FTly+CcsQdopUlOa0aBddVgW7I6vOvmrtomZftxjVW
	vzvDd9zhS6grSGDfk9/dxi3MbFziIKqZiTffddimW21+jvsAqrmrXtProld3df1VQllQ
	AsvkAKPwtKug65RcAJ3Nmhn225GntDEpBrWH+VWkVi6KfqQfli5TZaZCtfvd1dpGydXW
	AzCOVR9XVe1++c54BF651AnkZUJri4xnJlbKuUM4zDlL0a/wlXvCNWgdO8aXmSqpjsKm
	L1w3JPW7C4PSSBH9XikX+Bz5ogjFFnA3ch5+lxyxBv/EYBc5mwKE5ZzZO+3VDi6106Zr
	Ea1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmkUoo4uHRZWk4bsBcwSS5OBtXrS8nlCK2cT3lvK9arO4S6SNRCS6d9zzgfHrNPV/X+KAsA
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.182.7 with SMTP id ea7mr5384556wic.58.1443027496593;
	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0dHxXzemxJN87mU59j4_KZ=zOdwxpXOUe-NhB0ENVMWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcY8Vy+k+5BaBS+jV6D6tmSXrok8rAxoPxxKOzUhyPWgMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDoXa9ERY7iSsouxjypq1PwV_9HuBrtFQ_jrs5pGFst=KQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0dHxXzemxJN87mU59j4_KZ=zOdwxpXOUe-NhB0ENVMWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:58:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDofHuR-6A+BheaGYfHJ9_hjSScC+34nc6exkvAk3g=bHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] libconsensus and bitcoin development process
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: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:58:19 -0000

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> w=
rote:
> You need to write a high-level overview document, explaining things like:
>
> + Who should use libconsensus

Separating the consensus code is extremely important for less risky
and wider contributions regardless of what is exposed.
But once a complete libconsensus is exposed, alternative
implementations should use it (SPV implementations may not use all of
it though) and Bitcoin Core should eventually use it through its API
as well.

> + What functionality it will provide, and what it won't

It will provide full consensus validation (verification) for the
following structures:

- Script (done, VerifyScript is already exposed)
- Block Headers
- Transactions
- Blocks (including headers and transactions)

The user of the library has to manage storage by itself. This library
will be stateless (apart from libsecp256k1's context) and won't
provide storage.
This library won't tell you which is the longest chain, the highest
level function is VerifyBlock() that just tells you whether a block is
valid or not.

> + How the API works (is it C++ ? C ? Is it stateless ? How is information
> sent to/from -- classes ? structs ? serialized data structures ? Are ther=
e
> callbacks ?  How are errors returned ?)

Like the existing libconsensus, a complete libconsensus will have a C API.
The concrete API of each function is to be determined. The exact
concrete way to expose CCoinsViewCache and CBlockIndex (which are not
stateless) will require some discussion.
My preference is using function pointers combined with structs but
there's several possibilities there.
Once the code is separated and the rest of the undesired dependencies
are eliminated, people will be able to propose concrete final APIs
with a few commits.

> + What functions are in the API ?

At the very least:

- VerifyScript
- VerifyHeader
- VerifyTx
- VerifyBlock

To allow users of the library to intertwine policy or DoS checks with
the full verification of a structure (like Bitcoin core does today), I
would also expose at least:

- CheckTransaction/Consensus::CheckTx
- Consensus::CheckTxInputs
- Consensus::CheckTxInputsScripts (doesn't exist yet in master)
- CheckBlockHeader
- ContextualCheckBlockHeader
- CheckBlock
- ContextualCheckBlock

> Nobody has time to wade through pull requests to try to figure all that o=
ut.

Nobody has the time to review a PR with the many commits necessary to
propose a final independently buildable and complete C API.
This is a work in progress and there's more people participating, not just =
me.
There's many possible roads that lead to Rome, but let's not allow
perfection be the enemy of walking the very first step.
Can we at least agree on most of the functions that are clearly
consensus critical and separate those so it's easy to build them
separately from main.cpp ?
Can we agree on some of the dependencies that are obviously undesired
and relatively easy to remove?

> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > [collating a private mail and a github issue comment, moving it to a
>> > better forum]
>> >
>> > On libconsensus
>> > ---------------
>> > In general there exists the reasonable goal to move consensus state
>> > and code to a specific, separate lib.
>> >
>> > To someone not closely reviewing the seemingly endless stream of
>> > libconsensus refactoring PRs, the 10,000 foot view is that there is a
>> > rather random stream of refactors that proceed in fits and starts
>> > without apparent plan or end other than a one sentence "isolate
>> > consensus state and code" summary.
>> >
>> > I am hoping that
>> > * There is some plan
>> > * We will not see a five year stream of random consensus code movement
>> > patches causing lots of downstream developer headaches.
>> >
>> > I read every code change in every pull request that comes into
>> > github/bitcoin/bitcoin with three exceptions:
>> > * consensus code movement changes - too big, too chaotic, too
>> > frequent, too unfocused, laziness guarantees others will inevitably
>> > ACK it without me.
>> > * some non-code changes (docs)
>> > * ignore 80% of the Qt changes
>> >
>> > As with any sort of refactoring, they are easy to prove correct, easy
>> > to reason, and therefore quick and easy to ACK and merge.
>> >
>> > Refactors however have a very real negative impact.
>> > bitcoin/bitcoin.git is not only the source tree in the universe.
>> > Software engineers at home, at startups, and at major companies are
>> > maintaining branches of their own.
>> >
>> > It is very very easy to fall into a trap where a project is merging
>> > lots of cosmetic changes and not seeing the downstream ripple effects.
>> > Several people complained to me at the conference about all the code
>> > movement changes breaking their own work, causing them to stay on
>> > older versions of bitcoin due to the effort required to rebase to each
>> > new release version - and I share those complaints.
>> >
>> > Complex code changes with longer development cycles than simple code
>> > movement patches keep breaking.  It is very frustrating, and causes
>> > folks to get trapped between a rock and a hard place:
>> > - Trying to push non-trivial changes upstream is difficult, for normal
>> > and reasonable reasons (big important changes need review etc.).
>> > - Maintaining non-trivial changes out of tree is also painful, for the
>> > aforementioned reasons.
>> >
>> > Reasonable work languishes in constant-rebase hell, and incentivizes
>> > against keeping up with the latest tree.
>> >
>> >
>> > Aside from the refactor, libconsensus appears to be engineering in the
>> > dark.  Where is any sort of plan?  I have low standards - a photo of a
>> > whiteboard or youtube clip will do.
>>
>> Just because you don't understand the changes proposed it doesn't mean
>> that they are random.
>> I may have done a poor job in communicating "my plan for libconsensus"
>> but I have tried many times and in many ways.
>> #bitcoin-dev logs show that I have not worked "in the dark" at all, on
>> the contrary, I've been very tenacious when asking for review and
>> opinions, to the point that several people (at least @laanwj and
>> @theuni have complained about their github inboxes being full of
>> "spam").
>> This is a relatively recent thread where I describe my plan:
>>
>> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009568.=
html
>> Not my first attempt on this list.
>>
>> It is very frustrating that everybody seems to agree that separating
>> libconsensus is a priority to maximize the number of people that can
>> safely contribute to the project, but at the same time, nobody thinks
>> that reviewing the necessary refactors to do so is a priority.
>> I tried creating big PRs for people to see "the big picture" #5946 but
>> those were too many commits and nobody wanted to read it. Gavin asked
>> for an API.
>> So I tried a smaller step: exposing just VerifyHeader in libconsensus
>> and leave VerifyTx and VerifyBlock for later #5995
>> Again, this was "too big" and "a moving target". In the meantime I
>> always had smaller one-little-step PRs that were part of a longer
>> branch:
>>
>> ** [8/8] MERGED Consensus
>> - [X] Consensus: Decouple pow from chainparams #5812 [consensuspow]
>> - [X] MOVEONLY: Move constants and globals to consensus.h #5696
>> [consensus_policy0]
>> - [X] Chainparams: Refactor: Decouple IsSuperMajority from Params()
>> #5968 [params_consensus]
>> - [X] Remove redundant getter CChainParams::SubsidyHalvingInterval()
>> #5996 [params_subsidy]
>> - [X] Separate CValidationState from main #5669 [consensus]
>> - [X] Consensus: Decouple ContextualCheckBlockHeader from checkpoints
>> #5975 [consensus_checkpoints]
>> - [X] Separate Consensus::CheckTxInputs and GetSpendHeight in
>> CheckInputs #6061 [consensus_inputs]
>> - [X] Bugfix: Don't check the genesis block header before accepting it
>> #6299 [5975-quick-fix]
>> ** [5/5] DELETED
>> *** DELETED Refactor: Create CCoinsViewEfficient interface for
>> CCoinsViewCache #5747 [coins]
>> *** DELETED Chainparams: Explicit Consensus::Params arg in consensus
>> functions #6024 [params_consensus2]
>> *** DELETED MOVEONLY: Move most of consensus functions (pre-block)
>> #6051 [consensus_moveonly] (depends on consensus-blocksize-0.12.99)
>> *** DELETED Consensus: Refactor: Separate CheckFinalTx from
>> main::IsFinalTx #6063 [consensus_finaltx]
>> *** DELETED Consensus: Refactor: Turn CBlockIndex::GetMedianTimePast
>> into independent function #6009 [consensus_mediantime]
>> *** DELETED Consensus: Adapt declarations of most obviously consensus
>> functions #6591 [consensus-params-0.12.99]
>> *** DELETED Consensus: Move blocksize and related parameters to
>> consensusparams ...without removing consensus/consensus.h [#6526
>> alternative] #6625 [consensus-blocksize-0.12.99]
>>
>> After a while I stop rebasing the longer branches and just maintained
>> a few small consensus-related PRs at a time.
>>
>> Now I consolidated 3 of them in
>>
>> *** REVIEW Optimizations: Consensus: In AcceptToMemoryPool,
>> ConnectBlock, and CreateNewBlock #6445 [consensus-txinputs-0.12.99]
>>
>> with the hope that it would be merged relatively fast.
>> After that it will be much simpler to start talking about potential C
>> APIs for VerifyHeader, VerifyTx and VerifyBlock; as well as separating
>> the library to a subtree.
>>
>> I'm more than happy to answer any questions anyone may have about any
>> of the PRs or commits, until everybody interested is convinced that
>> there's nothing random in the proposed changes.
>> I'm also more than happy to get advice on how to better communicate my
>> plans and structure my PRs.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen