Monarch [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01 📝 Original message:On 2015-09-01 15:59, Dave ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:On 2015-09-01 15:59, Dave Collins via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'd be interested to know about these supposed btcd mainnet forks that
> have occurred due to a consensus failure since it came out of alpha.
> I'll go ahead and save you some research time - there hasn't been one.
> I'm not claiming there will never be one as that would be just as
> foolish as claiming Bitcoin Core won't have any more either.
>
For the purposes of the conversation this was only brought up to re-
enforce my claim that this is outrageously difficult software
development, irrespective of the quality of the code being produced in
alternate implementations. Sorry if that came across as an attack
against your software in particular, it wasn't intended.
> On the other hand, Bitcoin Core has had actual forks on mainnet during
> the same period. I'm not casting stones at Bitcoin Core here, because
> as I've said many times, none of us are perfect. No matter how careful
> everyone is, it is bound to happen from time to time.
>
The point I was trying to make is that this is simply a hard
development situation to be working in, we don't know what behavior is
inferred by the use of CPP and even more so OpenSSL (as the DER
encoding consensus failure made abundantly clear). There's almost
certainly more problems lying around given how generally dusty a lot
of the transaction environment is, it's very easy to get off the
beaten track with Bitcoin script.
📝 Original message:On 2015-09-01 15:59, Dave Collins via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'd be interested to know about these supposed btcd mainnet forks that
> have occurred due to a consensus failure since it came out of alpha.
> I'll go ahead and save you some research time - there hasn't been one.
> I'm not claiming there will never be one as that would be just as
> foolish as claiming Bitcoin Core won't have any more either.
>
For the purposes of the conversation this was only brought up to re-
enforce my claim that this is outrageously difficult software
development, irrespective of the quality of the code being produced in
alternate implementations. Sorry if that came across as an attack
against your software in particular, it wasn't intended.
> On the other hand, Bitcoin Core has had actual forks on mainnet during
> the same period. I'm not casting stones at Bitcoin Core here, because
> as I've said many times, none of us are perfect. No matter how careful
> everyone is, it is bound to happen from time to time.
>
The point I was trying to make is that this is simply a hard
development situation to be working in, we don't know what behavior is
inferred by the use of CPP and even more so OpenSSL (as the DER
encoding consensus failure made abundantly clear). There's almost
certainly more problems lying around given how generally dusty a lot
of the transaction environment is, it's very easy to get off the
beaten track with Bitcoin script.