{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-02-14\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Adam Back \u003cadam at cypherspace.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e That its highly complex to maintain strict consensus between bitcoin\n\u003e versions, does not justify consensus rewrite experiments\n\n\nCorrect. However, those maintenance costs absolutely do justify working\ntowards formal proofs of correctness for the existing implementation. These\nplans are no secret and are publicly discussed, but I think it would be\ninstrumental to outsiders if the correctness plans and ongoing progress\ncould be mentioned whenever a warning is made about unjustified and\ndangerous Bitcoin consensus rewrite attempts.\n\n- Bryan\nhttp://heybryan.org/\n1 512 203 0507\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150214/67b27d76/attachment.html\u003e"}