From: "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>,
"Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Long-term vision for bitcoind (was libconsensus and bitcoin development process)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:10:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <em19621644-ea81-4030-bf85-0b3dbca635a7@platinum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <em9a15c95a-cdb0-451f-8b69-e73572a722d2@platinum>
I should also add that the mempool should exist in (2). This way the
peer services layer can manage all relay policy and mempool management.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>; "Wladimir J. van der Laan"
<laanwj@gmail.com>
Cc: "Bitcoin development mailing list"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: 9/22/2015 5:07:22 PM
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Long-term vision for bitcoind (was
libconsensus and bitcoin development process)
>Here's what I propose as a long-term plan:
>
>1) libconsensus
>==========
>We should probably start by defining an API for libconsensus. It should
>support an abstract DB model, track chain state, provide query
>mechanisms for blocks and transactions with optional pruning and
>indexing, expose a subscription mechanism for events such as NEW_TIP,
>REORG, etc, and contain a script interpreter.
>
>We can develop the library in parallel with Bitcoin Core without too
>much refactoring of Bitcoin Core itself...just moving pieces of Bitcoin
>Core's consensus code into the new library, tracking code movements to
>make merging easier. Yes, this is a bit ugly as it requires code
>duplication...but it will temporarily avoid much of the downstream
>pushback we're getting. The idea is that we can prove out the library
>with some simple projects, then start removing the consensus stuff from
>Bitcoin Core once we have greater acceptance of the library and better
>documentation.
>
>
>2) peer services
>==========
>We develop a peer services library that performs the tasks of peer
>discovery and relay, with the ability to connect to appropriate peers
>and queue messages. It uses libconsensus for all validation
>functionality and as a datastore for the consensus state but maintains
>its own database for peer history and statistics. I believe Cory has
>been working on this already using libevent. I've already developed an
>async library for this as well.
>
>
>3) API/RPC
>=======
>We provide high level calls and pub/sub mechanisms. ZMQ has been
>implemented and added already, but we could support other transports as
>well.
>
>
>4) Wallet
>======
>The wallet is split out into a separate process that connects to the
>stack via the API/RPC layer.
>
>
>- Eric
>
>------ Original Message ------
>From: "Jorge Timón" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
>Cc: "Bitcoin development mailing list"
><bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>Sent: 9/22/2015 11:36:14 AM
>Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Long-term vision for bitcoind (was libconsensus
>and bitcoin development process)
>
>>On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan via
>>bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> My long-term vision of bitcoind is a P2P node with validation and
>>>blockchain store, with a couple of data sources that can be
>>>subscribed to or pulled from.
>>
>>I agree with this long term vision.
>>Here's how I think it could happen:
>>
>>1) Libconsensus is completed and moved to a subtree (which has libsecp
>>as an internal subtree)
>>
>>2) Bitcoind becomes a subtree of bitcoin-wallet (which has
>>bitcoin-wallet and bitcoin-qt)
>>
>>Without aggressively changing it for this purpose, libconsensus should
>>tend to become C, like libsecp, which is better for proving
>>correctness.
>>Hopefully at some point it won't take much to move to C.
>>
>>Upper layers should move to C++11
>>
>>Don't focus on the git subtrees, the basic architecture is bitcoin-qt
>>on top of bitcoin-wallet, bitcoin-wallet on top of bitcoind (and
>>friends like bitcoin-cli and bitcoin-tx), bitcoind on top of
>>libconsensus on top of libsecp256k1.
>>
>>I believe this would maximize the number of people who can safely
>>contribute to the project.
>>I also believe this is the architecture most contributors have in mind
>>for the long term, but I may be wrong about it.
>>
>>Criticisms to this plan?
>>_______________________________________________
>>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-23 0:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-22 18:36 [bitcoin-dev] Long-term vision for bitcoind (was libconsensus and bitcoin development process) Jorge Timón
2015-09-23 0:07 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-09-23 0:10 ` Eric Lombrozo [this message]
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=em19621644-ea81-4030-bf85-0b3dbca635a7@platinum \
--to=elombrozo@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
--cc=laanwj@gmail.com \
/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