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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
