public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Libbitcoin <libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:08:30 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55D51A7E.9030301@voskuil.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpzAL9Rci8m60ruhHeDXx3gvGgPHMbupZKUZA1wys-AiQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 08/19/2015 04:27 PM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
>> [cross-posted to libbitcoin]
>>
>> On 08/19/2015 03:00 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:> On Wed, Aug
>> 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit
>> policies…and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly. 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?
> 
> No, as previously explained, once libconsensus is complete it can be
> moved to a separate repository like libsecp256k1.

I don't see this happening any time soon, and I'm not sure why we should
wait for it.

> At first it will need to be a subtree/subrepository of Bitcoin Core
> (like libsecp256k1 currently is), but I still don't undesrtand how
> that can possibly be a problem for alternative implementations (they
> can use a subtree as well if they want to). Depending on a separated
> libconsensus doesn't "make Bitcoin Core a dependency" more than
> depending on libsecp256k1 currently does.
>
>> 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 has.
> 
> I believe the simplest option...

You might consider this as feedback from your customer base.

> would be to fork the libconsensus
> project and do the schism/controversial/contentious hardfork there.
> But of course modifying libconsensus will be much easier than
> modifying Bitcoin Core (if anything, because the amount of code is
> much smaller).

That's a false dichotomy. We never would have considered forking Bitcoin
Core, and still wouldn't. Why would we set ourselves up for this
disruption, which would inevitably lead to us factoring the consensus
portions of libconsensus out of /bitcoin at the 11th hour?

We have to operate as if it can happen at any time. Otherwise we have
relinquished control of this vote and failed our users. Given that
operating assumption, it is much safer for us to have already done this
work (which we did). [It also provides a forcing function for us to
review in detail any consensus changes that get pushed out.]

My question is why you would not embrace an independent consensus
repository? Your work to evolve it doesn't change.

>> 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.
> 
> Unfortunately I only directly contacted libbitcoin because I was
> subscribed to the list at the time (maybe I'm still subscribed, not
> really sure).
> The other attempts to get feedback from other alternative
> implementations have been just mostly-ignored threads in bitcoin-dev.
> So, no, I cannot facilitate such a discussion, but I'm more than happy
> to collaborate to achieve our mutual goal.

OK

e


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-08-20  0:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-19 16:53 [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork Adam Back
2015-08-19 17:22 ` Simon Liu
2015-08-19 18:13   ` Peter Todd
2015-08-19 23:37     ` Simon Liu
2015-08-19 17:28 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 17:32 ` Btc Drak
2015-08-19 18:20   ` Peter Todd
2015-08-19 19:15     ` Btc Drak
2015-08-19 19:32       ` odinn
2015-08-19 19:48         ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-19 19:58           ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 20:04             ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-19 22:00               ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 23:07                 ` Eric Voskuil
2015-08-19 23:27                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 23:56                     ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-20  1:00                       ` GC
2015-08-20  1:17                         ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-20  0:08                     ` Eric Voskuil [this message]
2015-08-19 18:22   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 19:12 ` Santino Napolitano
2015-08-19 19:28   ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-20  9:00 ` Mike Hearn
2015-08-20  9:13   ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21  3:01     ` odinn
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-08-19  8:25 Btc Drak
2015-08-17 20:24 Theo Chino
2015-08-18  4:56 ` Dave Scotese
2015-08-15 17:43 Satoshi Nakamoto
2015-08-15 19:08 ` Laszlo Hanyecz
2015-08-15 19:10 ` jl2012
2015-08-17 11:40 ` Oliver Egginger
2015-08-17 11:44   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-17 11:51     ` Oliver Egginger
2015-08-17 16:32       ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-17 17:01         ` Oliver Egginger
2015-08-17 17:15           ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-17 17:30             ` Btc Drak
2015-08-17 17:18       ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-08-17 19:14         ` Peter Todd
2015-08-17 17:28   ` Jeff Garzik
2015-08-17 19:03   ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-08-17 20:37     ` Oliver Egginger
2015-08-18  5:16       ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-08-18  9:15       ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-08-18 11:52         ` Micha Bailey
2015-08-18 18:57         ` Oliver Egginger
2015-08-18 20:59           ` Anon Moto
2015-08-19  1:03             ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2015-08-17 19:02 ` Anon Moto
2015-08-17 19:40   ` Marcel Jamin
2015-08-17 19:16 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-17 19:28   ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-08-17 19:39     ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19  2:54 ` odinn
2015-08-19  2:59   ` Angel Leon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=55D51A7E.9030301@voskuil.org \
    --to=eric@voskuil.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
    --cc=libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox