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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XmhkR-00025X-Nk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:30:35 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.54; envelope-from=clem.ds@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XmhkP-0003XJ-RH for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:30:35 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id n12so3462657wgh.27 for ; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 03:30:23 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.87.131 with SMTP id ay3mr15674622wjb.66.1415359823190; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 03:30:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20141106213215.GA12918@savin.petertodd.org> <545BF0C2.3030201@bluematt.me> <545BFAD6.1000504@riseup.net> <20141106232649.GD26859@savin.petertodd.org> <545C0617.7020300@riseup.net> <20141107000310.GA6532@savin.petertodd.org> <20141107084810.GA7878@savin.petertodd.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment_Elbaz?= Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:30:22 +0000 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd , Tamas Blummer Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0102edfe7da49e050743233c X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (clem.ds[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1XmhkP-0003XJ-RH Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, Justus Ranvier Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The difficulty of writing consensus critical code: the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug 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: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:30:35 -0000 --089e0102edfe7da49e050743233c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thinking out loud here : would it make sense to separate the consensus code into some kind of "Bitcoin Kernel" (similar to the Linux Kernel) project that could be used by anyone ? Bitcoin Core (and any other application wishing to do so) could be based on it. The kernel would just contain the absolute minimum code for reaching consensus, leaving every other aspects of the implementation to the applications built with it. It would be stateless : it would provide an interface to submit a block/transaction to be validated, including the context needed to validate it (the previously validated blocks referenced by this block/transaction). What do you think ? Cl=C3=A9ment Le Fri Nov 07 2014 at 9:49:05 AM, Peter Todd a =C3=A9c= rit : On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:07:47AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: > > Peter, > > > > forking would work best with a freeze of the consensus code. Do you see > any chance for that? > > To a first approximation the consensus code *is* frozen; if we introduce > any consensus changes into it at this point it's due to a mistake, not > intentionally. > > Of course, that's not including the two serious soft-fork proposals in > the air right now, Pieter Wuille's BIP62 and my CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. > However dealing with proposed changes like those in an environment where > the competing implementations all use essentially the same > consensus-critical code is much easier than in an environment where they > don't; I say this on both a technical and political level. > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 00000000000000000c901eb1b6b765519b99c3afd7a9062ff4cfa29666ce140d > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --089e0102edfe7da49e050743233c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thinking out loud here : would it make sense to separate the consensus code= into some kind of "Bitcoin Kernel" (similar to the Linux Kernel)= project that could be used by anyone ?

Bitcoin Core (an= d any other application wishing to do so) could be based on it.=C2=A0
=

The kernel would just contain the absolute minimum code= for reaching consensus, leaving every other aspects of the implementation = to the applications built with it.

It would be sta= teless : it would provide an interface to submit a block/transaction to be = validated, including the context needed to validate it (the previously vali= dated blocks referenced by this block/transaction).

What do you think ?

Cl=C3=A9ment

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">Le=C2=A0Fri Nov 07 2014 at 9:49:05 AM, Peter Todd= <pete@petertodd= .org> a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:

On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:07:47AM +0100, Tamas Bl= ummer wrote:
> Peter,
>
> forking would work best with a freeze of the consensus code. Do you se= e any chance for that?

To a first approximation the consensus code *is* frozen; if we introduce any consensus changes into it at this point it's due to a mistake, not<= br> intentionally.

Of course, that's not including the two serious soft-fork proposals in<= br> the air right now, Pieter Wuille's BIP62 and my CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. However dealing with proposed changes like those in an environment where the competing implementations all use essentially the same
consensus-critical code is much easier than in an environment where they don't; I say this on both a technical and political level.

--
'peter'[:-1]@pet= ertodd.org
00000000000000000c901eb1b6b765519b99c3afd7a9062ff4cfa29666ce<= u>140d
------------------------------------------------------------<= u>------------------
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listi= nfo/bitcoin-development
--089e0102edfe7da49e050743233c--