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 ?

Clément

Le Fri Nov 07 2014 at 9:49:05 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> a écrit :

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
>