On 08/20/15 21:26, Tamas Blummer wrote:
I know what you mean as I already have such a component with pluggable
block store and networking.
I'm not suggesting pluggable networking, I'm suggesting (and I think
everyone thinks the design should be) NO networking. The API is
ValidationResult libconsensus.HeyIFoundABlock(Block) and
ListOfBlocksToDownloadNext libconsensus.HeyIFoundAHeaderList(ListOfHeaders).
While you are at it you could aim for isolation of bitcoin specific
decisions and algos from generic block chain code.
Are you suggesting to support altcoins? I dont think anyone cares about
supporting that.
The magnitude of refactoring you would have to do to get there from
main.cpp and the rest of the hairball
is harder than a re-write from scratch,
I think you'd be very pleasantly surprised. It sounds like you havent
dug into Bitcoin Core validation code in years.
and the result will not be
impressive, just hopefully working.
Hmm? The result would be an obviously correct consensus implementation
that everyone could use, instead of everyone going off and writing their
own and either being wrong, or never updating in the case of forks. Its
a huge deal to allow people to focus on making their libraries have good
APIs/Wallets/etc instead of focusing on making a working validation
engine (though maybe for that the p2p layer needs to also be in a library).
I think a slim API server was a lower hanging fruit in Core’s case.
We have one, it just needs a few already obvious performance improvements.
BTW, support for refactoring is an example where you see if your tool
set is modern.
There are a number of good development tools for C++ that allow this....
Tamas Blummer
On Aug 20, 2015, at 19:44, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
I dont think a libconsensus would have any kind of networking layer, nor
is C++ an antique tool set (hopefully libconsensus can avoid a boost
dependency, though thats not antique either). Ideally it would have a
simple API to give it blocks and a simple API for it to inform you of
what the current chain is. If you really want to get fancy maybe it has
pluggable block storage, too, but I dont see why you couldnt use this in
~any client?
On 08/20/15 08:35, Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Every re-implementation, re-factoring even copy-paste introduces a
risk of disagreement,
but also open the chance of doing the work better, in the sense of
software engineering.
On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:06, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc
<mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc>> wrote:
But the goal is not reimplementing the consensus rules but rather
extract them from Bitcoin Core so that nobody needs to re-implement
them again.
My goal is different. Compatibility with Bitcoin is important as I
also want to deal with Bitcoins,
but it is also imperative to be able to create and serve other block
chains with other rules and for those
I do not want to carry on the legacy of an antique tool set and a
spaghetti style.
Bits of Proof uses scala (akka networking), java (api service), c++
(leveledb and now libconsensus)
and I am eager to integrate secp256k1 (c) as soon as part of
consensus. The choices were
made because each piece appears best in what they do.
Tamas Blummer
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev