Yep, we see that it's preaching to the choir even :) These issues aren't
discussed widely. The wider community is still catching up to new things
from >1-2 years ago.

It's nice though. People want bitcoind for its correctness together with
Obelisk for its features. Correctness will improve over time as Bitcoin
grows.

https://wiki.unsystem.net/index.php/Obelisk

https://wiki.unsystem.net/index.php/Libbitcoin

https://wiki.unsystem.net/index.php/DarkWallet/Intro

If anyone wants to participate or add to the Wiki then do jump in and
start organising / making pages.

I didn't participate in that Reddit btw, it was our designer.

> Something that is a bit of a non problem though, like from this leak you
> replied to here
> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1sinh7/hey_rbitcoin_we_are_the_developers_of_the_dark/cdy0neb
>
>
> they don't understand that the Bitcoin specification is the
>> consensus-critical part of the Satoshi source code. Instead they are
>> pursuing a ground-up re-implementation, and like it or not, they're
>> just
>> not smart enough to get all the details right - nobody is.
>>
>
> This is where the foundation goes wrong and most of my concerns are for
> it.
> Bitcoin is a protocol, not a software, if there is one thing the
> foundation
> should do, it is to create rpc quality documentation for the protocol and
> publish it. Then they can create a library with the satoshi code, then
> they can build a node on top of that, then they can build a wallet.
>
> Right now we have bitcoin is defined by bitcoind and what is chosen by the
> foundation. A bit like how IE really defined the HTML standard back in the
> late 90/early 2000's. Although less can go wrong with http than with the
> bitcoin network, it would be insane for someone to say don't use firefox,
> use IE because thats what most of the protocol already uses.
>
> If the possibility of miners choosing libbitcoin to mine with is such a
> concern, then they should audit the code, reimplementations are
> inevitable,
> there will certainly be bumps along the way and blocks/forks will be
> orphaned. But centralised development of one single client is not the way
> forward.
>
>
> Thanks
> Bob
>
>
> On 12 December 2013 22:16, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:
>
>> Yep. Mainly though some people are worried about bad blocks getting into
>> an Obelisk blockchain.
>>
>> > This is awesome. You can run bitcoind and obelisk on the same
>> system/LAN
>> > without any increase in traffic. Should help for testing if you can
>> > rebuild
>> > the database straight off a bitcoind node already running locally.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 12 December 2013 21:40, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The format of the config file has changed slightly:
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/spesmilo/obelisk/blob/master/src/worker/worker.cfg
>> >>
>> >> It is now possible to add custom outgoing nodes, disable listening
>> for
>> >> incoming connections.
>> >>
>> >> One use-case is to have a custom bitcoind which Obelisk connects to
>> for
>> >> downloading blocks. This makes it possible to disable untrusted nodes
>> to
>> >> connect to Obelisk without going through bitcoind.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Libbitcoin mailing list
>> >> Libbitcoin@???
>> >> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>