Cory Fields [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-12-15 📝 Original message:On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2014-12-15
📝 Original message:On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> BtcDrak was working on rebasing my CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY¹ patch to master a few
> days ago and found a fairly large design change that makes merging it currently
> impossible. Pull-req #4890², specifically commit c7829ea7, changed the
> EvalScript() function to take an abstract SignatureChecker object, removing the
> txTo and nIn arguments that used to contain the transaction the script was in
> and the txin # respectively. CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY needs txTo to obtain the
> nLockTime field of the transaction, and it needs nIn to obtain the nSequence of
> the txin.
>
> We need to fix this if CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is to be merged.
>
> Secondly, that this change was made, and the manner in which is was made, is I
> think indicative of a development process that has been taking significant
> risks with regard to refactoring the consensus critical codebase. I know I
> personally have had a hard time keeping up with the very large volume of code
> being moved and changed for the v0.10 release, and I know BtcDrak - who is
> keeping Viacoin up to date with v0.10 - has also had a hard time giving the
> changes reasonable review. The #4890 pull-req in question had no ACKs at all,
> and only two untested utACKS, which I find worrying for something that made
> significant consensus critical code changes.
>
> While it would be nice to have a library encapsulating the consensus code, this
> shouldn't come at the cost of safety, especially when the actual users of that
> library or their needs is still uncertain. This is after all a multi-billion
> project where a simple fork will cost miners alone tens of thousands of dollars
> an hour; easily much more if it results in users being defrauded. That's also
> not taking into account the significant negative PR impact and loss of trust. I
> personally would recommend *not* upgrading to v0.10 due to these issues.
>
> A much safer approach would be to keep the code changes required for a
> consensus library to only simple movements of code for this release, accept
> that the interface to that library won't be ideal, and wait until we have
> feedback from multiple opensource projects with publicly evaluatable code on
> where to go next with the API.
>
> 1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki
> 2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4890
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000001b18a596ecadd07c0e49620fb71b16f9e41131df9fc52fa6

It would appear as though you're trying to drum up controversy here,
but the argument is quite a stretch, and contrary to some other
arguments you're making in parallel. There seem to be three themes in
your above complaint, so I'd like to address them individually.

1. Pr #4890 specifically. The argument seems to be that this was not
properly reviewed/tested, and that it is an unnecessary risk to the
consensus codebase.

Looking at the PR at github, while I certainly don't agree with those
conclusions, I suppose I can understand where they're coming from.
There's plenty of context missing, as well as sidebar discussions on
IRC and other PRs. To an outside observer, these changes may look
under-tested and unnecessary.

The context that's missing is the flurry of work that was going on in
parallel to modularize this (and surrounding code). #4890 was one of
the first pieces necessary for that, so some of the discussion about
it was happening in dependent pull requests.

You can point to a lack ACKs in one place for that PR, but that
doesn't mean that the changes weren't tested/reviewed/necessary. You
could also argue that ACKs should've been mirrored on the PR in
question for posterity, which would be a perfectly reasonable argument
that I would agree with.


2. These changes conflict with a rebased version of your
CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY changes. OK? You have a tree that's a few months
old, and you find that you have conflicts when rebasing to master. It
happens to all of us. Do as the rest of us do and update your changes
to fit. If you missed the review of #4890 and think it should be
reverted, then call for a revert. But please give a concrete reason
other than "I've picked this commit series for a crusade because it
gave me merge conflicts".

What is the conspiracy here? There's a signature cache that is
implementation-specific, and in a parallel universe, you might be
arguing that we should rip it out because it adds unnecessary
complexity to the consensus code. The PR provides a path around that
complexity. For some reason, your reaction is to cry foul months later
because you missed reviewing it at the time, rather than cheering for
the reduced complexity.

3. You seem to think that 1. and 2. seem to point to a systemic
failure of the review process because modularization "shouldn't come
at the cost of safety". I agree that it shouldn't come at the cost of
safety, but I see no failure here. There has been a HUGE effort to
modularize the code with a combination of pure-code-movement and small
interface reworks. Please take a moment to grep the git logs for
"MOVEONLY" in the 0.10 branch.

You'll notice that script verification is now 100% free of bitcoind
state, threading, and third-party libraries (other than openssl for
now). That constitutes a massive reduction in code complexity, future
review overhead, etc. I'll point out here that those were my reasons
for my contributions to the libbitcoinconsensus effort. I have no
interest in altcoins or sidechains.

Those milestones were thanks to an effort which included #4890. If you
have issues with these changes and/or how they were made, please call
out individual failures and proposed solutions _in context_. That they
conflict with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY may be a valid concern, and it may
be worth evaluating how separate coding efforts may more effectively
parallelized.

Without pointers to specific failures or solutions, I'm not sure what
you were trying to communicate here, other than maybe stirring the
social networks with: "I
personally would recommend *not* upgrading to v0.10 due to these
issues." That's fine I suppose, but it does nothing to solve whatever
issue you're trying to call out here.

Cory