:: Re: [Libbitcoin] Obelisk changes: m…
Forside
Slet denne besked
Besvar denne besked
Skribent: Amir Taaki
Dato:  
Til: libbitcoin
Emne: Re: [Libbitcoin] Obelisk changes: manually add outgoing nodes (grazcoin request)
We've been at this for 3 years. Here's an early project to refactor
Satoshi's code:

https://gitorious.org/freecoin/spesmilo/commits/c2d85a20b8a175cfb68cc66005e5dee737b1432b

If you want to understand more about the underlying technology and how
we can empower developers to do more with better designed systems then
read the documentation here: http://libbitcoin.dyne.org/doc/

On 13/12/13 05:29, Wladimir wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Robert Williamson <bobalot@???
> <mailto:bobalot@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     For some reason reply doesn't always work for lists.dyne.org
>     <http://lists.dyne.org> for me and it goes straight to the sender.
>     Adding list back in for transparency.

>
>     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. 

>
>
> IMO, the biggest problem is that the Darkwallet guys try to introduce a
> new wallet and a new mining-supporting node implementation at the same time.
>
> This conflates issues. Many people confuse "bitcoind as a full node" and
> "bitcoind as a wallet" already.
>
> Yes, the wallet implementation in bitcoind/-qt is pretty terrible. It
> shouldn't be such a static part of the reference client project. I'm in
> favor of deprecating the wallet in bitcoind/-qt as better alternative
> wallets appear, and when there is a migration path for current users
> (see --disable-wallet mode as merged into current master).
>
> Implementing user friendly wallets that support privacy features and
> sane backup policies is a worthy goal. And I would have donated if it
> was just for that.
>
> However, what I don't see is why would this require an alternative
> mining-capable node? How does that help end users with privacy?
>
> I agree that it would be nice if the consensus rules were better
> documented, or if the appropriate consensus-critical parts were isolated
> from the reference client and converted into a library. So why doesn't a
> project to that? Why this focus on re-implementing before
> documenting/understanding?
>
> Wladimir
>