{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-02-15\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:04:49AM -0800, Adam Back wrote:\n\u003e Strongly with Peter on this.  That its highly complex to maintain strict\n\u003e consensus between bitcoin versions, does not justify consensus rewrite\n\u003e experiments; it tells you that the risk is exponentially worse and people\n\u003e should use and rally around libconsensus.\n\nIt's worth remembering that one of the goals in writing - or to be more\nprecise, separating - libconsensus from the Bitcoin Core codebase is to\nmake it easier to maintain strict consensus between Bitcoin Core\nversions.\n\n\u003e I would advise any bitcoin ecosystem part, wallet, user to not use software\n\u003e with consensus protocol rw-writes nor variants, you WILL lose money.\n\u003e \n\u003e You could view bitcoin as a digital signature algorithm speculatively\n\u003e tinkering with the algo is highly prone to binary failure mode and\n\u003e unbounded funds loss.\n\u003e \n\u003e Want to be clear this is not a political nor emotive issue. It is a\n\u003e critical technical requirement for security if users of software people\n\u003e write.\n\nThe necessity of it isn't a political or emotive issue, but the\nconsequences are definitely political. Just not in the way that most of\nthe ecosystem appears to think.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000016b6444e463c7d92da1579360c5f71d4fbd3dab45d13990a\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150215/f5659c7d/attachment.sig\u003e"}