📅 Original date posted:2015-02-14
📝 Original message: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...
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 15:30:34
in reply to nevent1q…dnw2
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 15:30:34Event JSON
{
"id": "0e587dbbfe80054f17d5b3c0ede62e3a7255c4202e160e8e4cbcb42b60578cb6",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686151834,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a1e27a9e8f5d88bf32b6a112984bbe10158121e645475e7be21e08ccaa36e778",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8cc77e2a34dff6dd86c6aec776926b6595ec0919beea90f2e4d89b83af175890",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-02-14\n📝 Original message:On Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:23:47 PM Tamas Blummer wrote:\n\u003e We have seen that the consensus critical code practically extends to\n\u003e Berkley DB limits or OpenSSL laxness, therefore it is inconceivable that a\n\u003e consensus library is not the same as Bitcoin Core, less its P2P service\n\u003e rules, wallet and RPC server.\n\nYou can describe 'A' from a group of A, B, C, D, E as \"the group minus B, C, \nD, E\", sure - but I don't see how this is relevant?\n\nUTXO storage is indeed consensus critical, as you say, but it is a lot simpler \nto get right than the rest combined. Thus, the end goal is to have a \nlibbitcoinconsensus with \"the rest\", and a (as of yet named) \nlibbitcoincompleteconsensus that ties in the canonical UTXO storage. Ideally, \nsoftware should use the latter when it is available, but if there is a strong \nreason to change UTXO storage, one can remain mostly-safe with just the \nformer. I'm not sure why this topic is of relevance, though...\n\nLuke",
"sig": "2e21b638266e241b1b95a6f2b5731244c96016ee6d1cde7b08fa5abaf948dc283a4b082ca5ec25410ee1953a27bac459a9b9c48df36ce0fb59f4e1eac0500fba"
}