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
|
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 <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1YMmiS-0007N1-Sp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 15 Feb 2015 00:05:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of dashjr.org
designates 85.234.147.28 as permitted sender)
client-ip=85.234.147.28; envelope-from=luke@dashjr.org;
helo=zinan.dashjr.org;
Received: from 85-234-147-28.static.as29550.net ([85.234.147.28]
helo=zinan.dashjr.org)
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1YMmiQ-0006mK-RP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 15 Feb 2015 00:05:40 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF0F0108371C;
Sun, 15 Feb 2015 00:05:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 00:05:24 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.14.27-gentoo; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CABm2gDpReRty6TdfMDssjF27XgC_SYs_U__SFBNdsYW24Mzh8w@mail.gmail.com>
<20150214131320.GA26731@savin.petertodd.org>
<3D4F2E23-CADE-4FE7-B960-3F79815E868C@bitsofproof.com>
In-Reply-To: <3D4F2E23-CADE-4FE7-B960-3F79815E868C@bitsofproof.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201502150005.25183.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1YMmiQ-0006mK-RP
Cc: 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: <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: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 00:05:41 -0000
On Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:23:47 PM Tamas Blummer wrote:
> 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.
You can describe 'A' from a group of A, B, C, D, E as "the group minus B, C,
D, E", sure - but I don't see how this is relevant?
UTXO storage is indeed consensus critical, as you say, but it is a lot simpler
to get right than the rest combined. Thus, the end goal is to have a
libbitcoinconsensus with "the rest", and a (as of yet named)
libbitcoincompleteconsensus that ties in the canonical UTXO storage. Ideally,
software should use the latter when it is available, but if there is a strong
reason to change UTXO storage, one can remain mostly-safe with just the
former. I'm not sure why this topic is of relevance, though...
Luke
|
