On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:04:49AM -0800, Adam Back wrote: > Strongly with Peter on this. That its highly complex to maintain strict > consensus between bitcoin versions, does not justify consensus rewrite > experiments; it tells you that the risk is exponentially worse and people > should use and rally around libconsensus.
It's worth remembering that one of the goals in writing - or to be more precise, separating - libconsensus from the Bitcoin Core codebase is to make it easier to maintain strict consensus between Bitcoin Core versions. > I would advise any bitcoin ecosystem part, wallet, user to not use software > with consensus protocol rw-writes nor variants, you WILL lose money. > > You could view bitcoin as a digital signature algorithm speculatively > tinkering with the algo is highly prone to binary failure mode and > unbounded funds loss. > > Want to be clear this is not a political nor emotive issue. It is a > critical technical requirement for security if users of software people > write. The necessity of it isn't a political or emotive issue, but the consequences are definitely political. Just not in the way that most of the ecosystem appears to think. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000016b6444e463c7d92da1579360c5f71d4fbd3dab45d13990a
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
