Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.58 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.58; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149058.authsmtp.co.uk; 
In-Reply-To: <20150219033205.GS14804@nl.grid.coop>
References: <CABm2gDo_sYjNWU6EEsKmOXt5uUu87Lj1oFzqio79MxSx2SYrNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DE7601.4070509@voskuil.org>
	<CABm2gDpt60B=Sf_2X9xt4fPH7x4fff7K4h36XfosHigV5tP+4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DF07A5.1060004@voskuil.org>
	<CABm2gDoS+XOR7Ugt91kNWNdvwsb1_Zb-aO0sma_Xps2Sx-0N5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DF2E80.5060506@voskuil.org>
	<20150214131320.GA26731@savin.petertodd.org>
	<3D4F2E23-CADE-4FE7-B960-3F79815E868C@bitsofproof.com>
	<20150215170228.GB21269@savin.petertodd.org>
	<E0CB8E24-C67D-48B1-8D9F-2B71BAF13446@bitsofproof.com>
	<20150219033205.GS14804@nl.grid.coop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 03:44:34 +0000
To: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Message-ID: <065C5F2E-FC1D-4994-A39A-9125D663FC71@petertodd.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re:
	[Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)
Precedence: list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


On 18 February 2015 22:32:05 GMT-05:00, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:
>The work that Tamas did re-implementing is probably one of the most
>valuable
>things he ever did.

...in the same way going to university may be one of the more valuable things you ever do. But using the code resulting from that process over Satoshi Bitcoin/libconsensus is foolish.

>It would significantly improve the quality of the consensus code if
>this
>community would start treating it as a buggy & poorly defined
>proof-of-concept
>that just happens to actually run, rather than some holy scripture upon
>which
>we must never question (or change)

I suggest you actually look at the git commit history for the consensus-critical part of the Bitcoin Core codebase - so much work cleaning it up and refactoring has been done for v0.10.0/libconsensus that I think we're risking the introduction of a consensus bug unnecessarily and should slow down a little.

"holy scripture" it ain't.

>I'm impressed by the secp256k1 work, and other modularity efforts, but
>at
>some point main.cpp needs to get untangled, and have some critical
>review
>if bitcoin wants to remain relevant.

Again, this is exactly what people are working towards, at a speed that if anything is probably a bit too rapid.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJU5Vwc
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnco2EH/3bXwUTJ9iVLfYH0d/nvSXmt+C0Mpj5YFYr1h1vJv/3M
e/By1ORRdre9fdJjgMmr3pj9lIiZfd/qEKEnrmULqBsoSd/5EmMjFB2gpZmQ1xyM
ndUyy56S2TFr//3hpJukvuG01X6q+GRGymlpk+fYfNlna3IjpARUabmlB9dKKRPI
/XfyfpYyZh9G6DLsRg6+5BgKeW9OFRFm9aQY/yHiDgxpffIvYJ9QyOVm5vjtMgBQ
bs0P7yuCUJ06xdSrYK1ylTcEbFyVIXa5w+AYQRHfx5aw7fZkD7q5pmwv8mWJfy8n
IroSkmd1Erk0L3e+wJtAZn8S/6094IJ3v+2NajEC2hQ=
=MfY/