rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-02-15 📝 Original message:On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:04:49AM -0800, Adam Back wrote: > Strongly with Peter on this. That its highly complex to maintain strict > consensus between bitcoin versions, does not justify consensus rewrite > experiments; it tells you that the risk is exponentially worse and people > should use and rally around libconsensus. It's worth remembering that one of the goals in writing - or to be more precise, separating - libconsensus from the Bitcoin Core codebase is to make it easier to maintain strict consensus between Bitcoin Core versions. > I would advise any bitcoin ecosystem part, wallet, user to not use software > with consensus protocol rw-writes nor variants, you WILL lose money. > > You could view bitcoin as a digital signature algorithm speculatively > tinkering with the algo is highly prone to binary failure mode and > unbounded funds loss. > > Want to be clear this is not a political nor emotive issue. It is a > critical technical requirement for security if users of software people > write. The necessity of it isn't a political or emotive issue, but the consequences are definitely political. Just not in the way that most of the ecosystem appears to think. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000016b6444e463c7d92da1579360c5f71d4fbd3dab45d13990a -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 650 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150215/f5659c7d/attachment.sig>