wrong link:
https://gitorious.org/freecoin/freecoin/activities?page=2
On 13/12/13 05:33, Amir Taaki wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libbitcoin mailing list
> Libbitcoin@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>
::
Re: [Libbitcoin] Obelisk changes: m…
