From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 ) 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 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: <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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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