Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

[Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1678 bytes --]

Peter,

You did not address me but libbitcoin. Since our story and your evaluation is probably similar, I chime in.

On Feb 14, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> So stop wasting your time. Help get the consensus critical code out of
> Bitcoin Core and into a stand-alone libconsensus library,


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.


On Feb 14, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> 
> Or you can be stereotypical programmers and dick around on github for
> the next ten years chasing stupid consensus bugs in code no-one uses.



The Core code base is unfriendly to feature extensions because of its criticality, legacy design and ancient technology. It is also a commodity
that the ecosystem takes for granted and free. 

I honestly admire the core team that works and progresses within these limits and perception.

I am not willing to work within the core’s legacy technology limits. Does it mean I am dicking around? I think not.
It was my way to go down the rabbit hole by re-digging it and I created successful commercial products on the way.

It is entirely rational for me to focus on innovation that uses the core as a border router for this block chain. 

I am rather thankful for the ideas of the side chains, that enable innovation that is no longer measured on unapologetic compatibility with a given code base, but its services to end user.

Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3144 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 496 bytes --]