đź“… Original date posted:2015-08-20
đź“ť Original message:Jorge,
separating script engine into libconsensus was very helpful, since wrapped the piece of consensus
that would least likely to be captured exactly with an implementation from scratch. Thank you for your
effort there. Bits of Proof now uses its own or alternatively libconsensus for full validation.
I am sceptical however that a “full” consensus lib extracted from satoshi’s code is worth trying.
Not because it was impossible, but because the result would not be higher quality, if measured on agreement
with satoshi, than other re-implementations. It would actually be lower quality because of the antique tool set.
The rules outside script engine are simpler, therefore much easier to capture exactly. They are however
scattered around in the spaghetti and are often just a single if statement, also repeated elsewhere.
You would either have to very extensively refactor the code, that unlikely goes through as a PR, or
do what me and others did. Read satoshi code and rewrite the same. You have
a slight advantage of copy-paste small fragments, but I doubt the consensus relevant advantage of that.
Tamas Blummer
> On Aug 20, 2015, at 02:53, Jorge TimĂłn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> 1) Finish the libconsensus separation in an independent branch on top
> of a given version, for example 0.11.
> 2) Separate a repository from that. Alternative implementations can
> start using a full libconsensus
> 3) Rebase that branch on top of bitcoin/master and start to PR small
> groups of commits. Once the whole branch has been merged, Bitcoin Core
> can replace the consensus folder with the libconsensus subtree, so
> that Bitcoin Core itself can start using a full libconsensus.
>
> Ironically with this plan Bitcoin Core may not be the full node first
> implementation to use a full libconsensus.
> There will be some consensus fork bug risks during 3 (which at the
> current speed I estimate it could easily take 3 or 4 years) and there
> would be some redundant work (replicating every consensus change in
> both Bitcoin Core and libconsensus).
> On the bright side, we may be able to have a full libconsensus this
> year (which was my goal after we exposed VerifyScript in the first
> libconsensus).
>
> Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150820/fc405c9e/attachment-0001.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150820/fc405c9e/attachment-0001.sig>;
Tamas Blummer [ARCHIVE] /
npub1cc…ex8m8
2023-06-07 17:37:16
in reply to nevent1q…7szk
Author Public Key
npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8Published at
2023-06-07 17:37:16Event JSON
{
"id": "24b4eebdd4a85eeab9c8a6423fadceefabe6d6ae7c6d6a75ee53cb705191c930",
"pubkey": "c632841665fccdabf021322b1d969539c9c1f829ceed38844fea24e8512962d7",
"created_at": 1686159436,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"62eaaecf7e0dd571a7fefc51979233ca5e3a2661a7ebffd6475a1fa69ae78e93",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"88f0860fefeb47c3b8d1f64864fc5e437a154c049c4bdcc26177ece144c9ceb3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-20\n📝 Original message:Jorge,\n\nseparating script engine into libconsensus was very helpful, since wrapped the piece of consensus\nthat would least likely to be captured exactly with an implementation from scratch. Thank you for your\neffort there. Bits of Proof now uses its own or alternatively libconsensus for full validation.\n\nI am sceptical however that a “full” consensus lib extracted from satoshi’s code is worth trying.\nNot because it was impossible, but because the result would not be higher quality, if measured on agreement\nwith satoshi, than other re-implementations. It would actually be lower quality because of the antique tool set.\n\nThe rules outside script engine are simpler, therefore much easier to capture exactly. They are however\nscattered around in the spaghetti and are often just a single if statement, also repeated elsewhere.\n\nYou would either have to very extensively refactor the code, that unlikely goes through as a PR, or\ndo what me and others did. Read satoshi code and rewrite the same. You have\na slight advantage of copy-paste small fragments, but I doubt the consensus relevant advantage of that.\n\nTamas Blummer\n\n\u003e On Aug 20, 2015, at 02:53, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e 1) Finish the libconsensus separation in an independent branch on top\n\u003e of a given version, for example 0.11.\n\u003e 2) Separate a repository from that. Alternative implementations can\n\u003e start using a full libconsensus\n\u003e 3) Rebase that branch on top of bitcoin/master and start to PR small\n\u003e groups of commits. Once the whole branch has been merged, Bitcoin Core\n\u003e can replace the consensus folder with the libconsensus subtree, so\n\u003e that Bitcoin Core itself can start using a full libconsensus.\n\u003e \n\u003e Ironically with this plan Bitcoin Core may not be the full node first\n\u003e implementation to use a full libconsensus.\n\u003e There will be some consensus fork bug risks during 3 (which at the\n\u003e current speed I estimate it could easily take 3 or 4 years) and there\n\u003e would be some redundant work (replicating every consensus change in\n\u003e both Bitcoin Core and libconsensus).\n\u003e On the bright side, we may be able to have a full libconsensus this\n\u003e year (which was my goal after we exposed VerifyScript in the first\n\u003e libconsensus).\n\u003e \n\u003e Thoughts?\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150820/fc405c9e/attachment-0001.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 496 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150820/fc405c9e/attachment-0001.sig\u003e",
"sig": "58933134c53a96503141cdb550c6094d987832cda92ac549a054343ba1f8e1ca678fd8e32ba8d09b6f2f4714beb8e681ad28ccace39c2c600dac58b4ad711828"
}