From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail•com>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Libconsensus separated repository (was Bitcoin Core and hard forks)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:43:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150728084312.GA29453@amethyst.visucore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDrApVuxF8DFf32V=pQhDKvvVfcDK=LeCXJ9h9o8CY+wNQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:30:06PM +0200, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think there were some misunderstandings in our previous conversation
> about this topic.
> I completely agree with having a separated repository for libconsensus
> (that's the whole point, alternative implementations can be
> consensus-safe by using it, and in the event of a schism fork[1], they
> can fork just that smaller project without having to relay on Bitcoin
> Core [satoshi] at all).
Indeed.
> But I thought you also wanted Bitcoin Core to use libconsensus instead
> of just having a subtree/subrepository like it currently does with
> libsecp256k1.
> I'm not sure if that would ever be accepted, but in any case we're
> certainly far away from that goal. Here are some things that need to
> happen first:
I don't see any reason why Bitcoin Core would not use the consensus library. Eating our own dogfood and such.
Biggest risk, as I've said before, is that the refactoring loading to a (more complete) consensus library will result in code that is no longer bug-for-bug compatible with previous versions, thus defeating its entire purpose and introducing fork risk.
If that can be avoided - for example by going from here to there using pure code moves, as you're trying to do - I'm all for it.
> 2) Finish libconsensus's API: expose more things than VerifyScript, at
> the very least, also expose VerifyTx, VerifyHeader and VerifyBlock.
> Feedback from alternative implementations like libbitcoin is extremely
> valuable here. Some related closed-for-now PRs:
Agreed.
> 3) Move libconsensus to a separate repository as a
> subtree/subrepository of Bitcoin Core.
If the rest is done, this is the easy part :)
> Unfortunately and ironically again, safer, small and incremental
> changes are less interesting for reviewers.
> For example, I've been trying to move consensus code to the consensus
> folder for a long time. The correctness of a MOVEONLY change is
> trivial to review for anyone who knows how to copy/paste in its
> favorite editor and how to use git diff, but will I ever get answers
> to my questions in [1]?
Code review capacity is still our greatest bottleneck.
And I don't see any way out of that, unfortunately.
> I know there's many people who really care about this, Cory Fields,
> Wladimir and Pieter Wuille to name a few have reviewed many of this
> changes (I've just got used to publicly whine about lack of review on
> this front and policy encapsulation [very related fronts] as an
> attempt to get some attention: not always, but begging for review
> actually works some times).
I do really care about this.
Wladimir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-28 8:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-23 14:30 Jorge Timón
2015-07-23 14:57 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-07-23 21:02 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-23 21:30 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-07-28 6:40 ` Eric Voskuil
2015-07-28 8:47 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-07-28 9:58 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-29 20:38 ` Eric Voskuil
2015-07-29 21:46 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-20 0:53 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-20 7:14 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-08-20 8:06 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-20 8:35 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-08-20 17:44 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-20 21:26 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-08-20 21:35 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-21 6:46 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-08-21 19:46 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-21 20:07 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-22 11:04 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-08-23 1:23 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-23 2:19 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-23 6:42 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-08-29 23:30 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-29 23:25 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-29 22:08 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-28 8:43 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan [this message]
2015-07-28 10:09 ` Jorge Timón
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=20150728084312.GA29453@amethyst.visucore.com \
--to=laanwj@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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