Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
	designates 192.241.179.72 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=192.241.179.72; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me;
	helo=mail.bluematt.me; 
Message-ID: <545BF0C2.3030201@bluematt.me>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 22:05:54 +0000
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <20141106213215.GA12918@savin.petertodd.org>
	<A53D2C60-1D6A-4796-9776-3AF396BEC9F1@bitsofproof.com>
In-Reply-To: <A53D2C60-1D6A-4796-9776-3AF396BEC9F1@bitsofproof.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The difficulty of writing consensus
 critical code: the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug
Precedence: list

Depends, without BIP62 a /lot/ of the even basic contracts that people
want to use today (or wanted to use 18 months ago) are unusable, in
fact, without BIP62, the atomic swaps suggested as important for
sidechains are not secure. While redoing Bitcoin in a hardfork is nice,
its a very long-term thing, so I'm not sure about making people wait for
a large hardfork just to use payment channels.

Also, I echo the difficulty of writing consensus-compatible code and
highly suggest anyone with money behind an implementation that is doing
script verification in code that isnt Bitcoin Core rethink that decision.

Matt

On 11/06/14 21:58, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> Thanks Peter,
> 
> Having tried to write a bug-for-bug compatible code with Satoshi, I can only second that it is rather close to impossible. 
> 
> The aim of BIP62 is noble, still it does not feel right for me to increase the complexity of the code with e.g. soft-fork-ready versioning.
> Freezing the consensus code, studying its bugs appears more appropriate to me. What we learn could define a hard fork or a better
> chain we migrate to as discussed by blockstream.
> 
> Tamas Blummer