From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 197B094C for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:06:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A01A3F2 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:06:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdrh1 with SMTP id h1so6655732pdr.0 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:06:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=cnfFxrX9IOBv4Pa06cBO+PpWSrqrUb22eHi81Ngv8ho=; b=c+JKCsN8Gn1wSUtletyZIsRPn/TxlX7PT9Xy8qj8Bt6njRxe8gvSToh6KBAXojgQY4 g+WRQhxxTrk/b7OzEQcdFrbTjmusnEUN2qn9pM7SFq2n2y2IW4aPsMFSZ95du/Pnhl4F 60nE7NZQsk0/y0Z7Oi3NO/0RXTPjZWA0MGANCXvBcX2AR8gMaoRlcaKy16ihFDUF3lZ9 kQOFBwonPKxGe+9IoHrI117W828GBF3rY6JYRrJwl6VK/SD2J+uTN3UnLWKbwwCgXfMC /xwUUPz+tValA6Q/wr9knau5NKHcH7OC6P+DTUqfFwAUQKzkoKTGuuHIVGyLEwOGlLi7 QVig== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkl6itWLjkrGabap7ZQqReMgA6R+SWjzvjdoGSHWAZ0dFNo6/LrqciwYIwQ4tqsyJHcvyAO X-Received: by 10.70.132.228 with SMTP id ox4mr62296pdb.0.1440025612350; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.13] (c-73-225-134-208.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [73.225.134.208]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id z16sm2065422pbt.3.2015.08.19.16.06.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:06:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55D50C15.9020402@voskuil.org> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:07:01 -0700 From: Eric Voskuil User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= , Eric Lombrozo References: <20150819182010.GB12306@muck> <55D4D9C3.5070004@riseup.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fIbSqbJqTam3mccqg3SVWTAJWXBoa7r0C" 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Libbitcoin Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:06:53 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --fIbSqbJqTam3mccqg3SVWTAJWXBoa7r0C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [cross-posted to libbitcoin] On 08/19/2015 03:00 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote:> On Wed, = Aug 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: >> But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit policies=E2=80=A6and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly= =2E And we should find a way to communicate the difference succinctly and clearly to laypeople (which is something I think the XT opponents have been horrible at doing so far). > > I think that effort is in progress (again, much slower that I would > like it to be) and it's called libconsensus. > Once we have libconsensus Bitcoin Core it's just another > implementation (even if it is the reference one) and it's not "the > specification of the consensus rules" which is a "privileged" position > that brings all sorts of misunderstandings and problems (the block > size debate is just one example). Jorge, I applaud your efforts and objectives WRT libconsensus independence. But as you know I differ with you on this point: > Once we have libconsensus Bitcoin Core it's just another > implementation I do not consider Bitcoin Core just another implementation as long as libconsensus is built directly out of the bitcoind repository. It's a finer point, but an important one. Eric makes this point emphatically as well: >> But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit policies...and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly. As you have implied, it's not likely to happen in the Bitcoin Core repo. Taking a dependency on Bitcoin Core is a metaphorical deal with the devil from our perspective. So my question is, how do you expect other implementations to transition off of that repository (and commit policies)? Or do you expect the dependency to be perpetual? In our discussion leading up to libbitcoin building libbitcoin-consensus we disagreed on whether intentional hard forks would (or even could) happen. I think that issue is now settled. So my question remains how do stakeholders (users/miners) maintain consensus when it's their individual intent (the first objective of libconsensus), and diverge when intended (which a direct dependency on libconsensus makes harder)? IMO it's unreasonable to operate as if this won't happen, given that it h= as. There are a very small number of implementations that rely on consensus (fewer that aren't also forks of Bitcoin Core). I think it's time we discuss how to work together to achieve our mutual goal. I assume you have been in contact with all of us. If you would like to facilitate this I'd be happy to join in an offline discussion. e --fIbSqbJqTam3mccqg3SVWTAJWXBoa7r0C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1QwVAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFONPAH/2UQJ9+UZ8ZPAlc5HDJ/70HK 6L3ffNLphDGSRnpvvjTUkwUkGyUKKVSOW+ajLUydItRhmQ3UQZYaaZk5Jc2G3Nhs sC1emHoKjt6oIbIciZGqFX8ErsF4OLc15yT+mLp8taLtddnZZFk9vYwrKrfC4K+J 3qk7NftMPTWDpnBgk1rCe2XrxrXEBf2IlgxQZrkj6kWxjko/RJrpok0NxvU6iBwX swJHOEXvmTBuuQHTEBBHsj/dhLZqCqMsGNxroTbAMlrUPf7rFzg3PUgKG/OK8C7i DuBw7k1CdEcrQO8dn3f3VueLSZylYM4MAi1TIXV+SsWwdYks/Qjq5c4XWDhAiOA= =sGT6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fIbSqbJqTam3mccqg3SVWTAJWXBoa7r0C--