[Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)
luke at dashjr.org
Sun Feb 15 00:05:24 UTC 2015
On Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:23:47 PM Tamas Blummer wrote:
> We have seen that the consensus critical code practically extends to
> Berkley DB limits or OpenSSL laxness, therefore it is inconceivable that a
> consensus library is not the same as Bitcoin Core, less its P2P service
> rules, wallet and RPC server.
You can describe 'A' from a group of A, B, C, D, E as "the group minus B, C,
D, E", sure - but I don't see how this is relevant?
UTXO storage is indeed consensus critical, as you say, but it is a lot simpler
to get right than the rest combined. Thus, the end goal is to have a
libbitcoinconsensus with "the rest", and a (as of yet named)
libbitcoincompleteconsensus that ties in the canonical UTXO storage. Ideally,
software should use the latter when it is available, but if there is a strong
reason to change UTXO storage, one can remain mostly-safe with just the
former. I'm not sure why this topic is of relevance, though...
More information about the bitcoin-dev