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 F421910BE for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:37:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com [209.85.220.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A3FE230 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padan5 with SMTP id an5so4097761pad.0 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:37:19 -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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=V0a2xEaFIn2gKv5SKzDdpI5HzMtnb/B6yIhjsmtK17o=; b=DNNsuIHkBfzEkvUWOJBu279zXwWzCyLe+NBUZ6+MTBgyirPv+OY8ZQGzAYeUpDfKS8 hXqdxJkVcKKcD+jnS3y6/cfAUoOneZIThi9QCZ8Y2DR1NQ6ngxlG2hp4Kp1YuyC/mgig rnqbiZWLsZcGSXh80EMirk+bf13rgZJrlLsTQiy9alIGrSIItMV61G8KYRYcHL4BcWGe i5ce33LD3IFEntjRb8Ma5RTsJaKXcBUDGSUwzo3Vtj089Yyg7iwSaTzktYBoZJL1BUvs Aho52zeOO/deaVyjiLclGzMTJKAr3QsefQjsZic18PCuLReIKPdkXhQ4pnh/8Ga8ucPW HOUw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkmgE0dx2v6dyfmqm9Qk/8D35UWBk4Dwd+Xpm/M4iTj1jo47QbEcQspv9TZzEd9UGLB6ogs X-Received: by 10.66.63.99 with SMTP id f3mr57176795pas.6.1441132639280; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:37:19 -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 o3sm18739981pap.37.2015.09.01.11.37.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55E5F05E.9060409@voskuil.org> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:37:18 -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: Monarch , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org References: "\"<602b978abcedd92fbed85f305d9d7bfe@cock.li> <55E4B8C9.5030606@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> " " <5A3D7824-F1E3-421B-A32A-0EF21DD215BD@gmx.com> <5b7c2ba6e785e59595c2ee9a4596f097@cock.li> <55E5CB5C.2020405@conformal.com> <67820b46cdcb549aac36b9496b19b6b0@cock.li> In-Reply-To: <67820b46cdcb549aac36b9496b19b6b0@cock.li> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cq8lHQIhwBlM5Cu8oEmiCDKO3PNSd13sm" 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange 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: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 18:37:20 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --cq8lHQIhwBlM5Cu8oEmiCDKO3PNSd13sm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 09/01/2015 09:51 AM, Monarch via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 2015-09-01 15:59, Dave Collins via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> I'd be interested to know about these supposed btcd mainnet forks that= >> have occurred due to a consensus failure since it came out of alpha. >> I'll go ahead and save you some research time - there hasn't been one.= >> I'm not claiming there will never be one as that would be just as >> foolish as claiming Bitcoin Core won't have any more either. > > For the purposes of the conversation this was only brought up to re- > enforce my claim that this is outrageously difficult software > development, irrespective of the quality of the code being produced in > alternate implementations. Sorry if that came across as an attack > against your software in particular, it wasn't intended. Whether intended or otherwise this is an attack on the idea of decentralized bitcoin development. The option to fork or roll your own is open source, not decentralization. Decentralization requires *actually doing so*. One step down that path, even for a fork, is a major commitment. Common consensus check code is now available in several bitcoin implementations. The claim that this is outrageously difficult is misleading. It's just engineering work that needs to get done if Bitcoin is to survive. >> On the other hand, Bitcoin Core has had actual forks on mainnet during= >> the same period. I'm not casting stones at Bitcoin Core here, because= >> as I've said many times, none of us are perfect. No matter how carefu= l >> everyone is, it is bound to happen from time to time. >=20 > The point I was trying to make is that this is simply a hard > development situation to be working in, we don't know what behavior is > inferred by the use of CPP and even more so OpenSSL (as the DER > encoding consensus failure made abundantly clear). There's almost > certainly more problems lying around given how generally dusty a lot > of the transaction environment is, it's very easy to get off the > beaten track with Bitcoin script. These are issues that affect the satoshi client as much as other implementations, and therefore don't support your premise. e --cq8lHQIhwBlM5Cu8oEmiCDKO3PNSd13sm 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 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV5fBeAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFO1QgH/0HCjb9fqZC5GZyaoYHnHaYO VtjBLjAwqS7TZMPeKykkTAxYooRYwBvLIzC2PttZjFyjbe5xr/rNcyNecKAxLDa6 sLdWrgT2fwSs6D+vM0QKW91RtrC6m/5+lVs8eBxVHNLpHwzCcNNC1wO/Ywn1gYqd XfdpsiESO6PTj5qogt95vI2465tqMwBb3wr3GMZOC9TqPfgcrsuJeykaqNrvKeRe VSNpU8fUkTu9C1M7TqNR+mhIjoxzFBMCQlEyVC14srj6KdEad6J7WsyPBCFkUKou 6pOorKyULIUAGyy5/x5rWjDCHwQRvSUloWBsJzZr8BrTCxlg26AhjsyPAP28Vug= =slEV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cq8lHQIhwBlM5Cu8oEmiCDKO3PNSd13sm--