📅 Original date posted:2013-10-24 📝 Original message:Yes. I had pointed people ...

Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /

npub1kf0…3f58

2023-06-07 15:07:49

in reply to nevent1q…x30z

📅 Original date posted:2013-10-24
📝 Original message:Yes. I had pointed people in IRC to Knuth's literate programming, as
an example of how we might document bitcoin.

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> wrote:
> On 23/10/13 23:07, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>
>> In short,
>> consistency is more important than correctness.
>
> That's a nice and concise way to put it and any potential protocol
> documentation should start with a statement like that.
>
>> However, I do not think that making it hard to find information about
>> the details of the system is the way to go. Alternate implementations
>> are likely inevitable, and in the long run probably a win for the
>> ecosystem. If effort is put into accurately describing the rules, it
>> should indeed carry a strong notice about it being descriptive rather
>> than normative.
>
> One interesting question is whather alternative implementations are more
> likely to get it wrong because the protocol description is wrong or
> because the authors misunderstood the reference implementation source code.
>
> Extensive documentation of the source code, a la Knuth's literate
> programming, may be some kind of a middle ground.
>
>> If someone is willing to work on that, I am (and likely many people in
>> #bitcoin-dev are) available for any questions about the protocol and
>> its semantics.
>
> Ok. Several people expressed an interest in the topic, so I'll give it a
> try and see how it fares.
>
> Martin
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/

Author Public Key

npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 15:07:49

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "d6c2e9ec89b8bbb1fe89a9bacb8a002aa02448389922f97071f65661c039c932", "pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11", "created_at": 1686150469, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "7825845c40e7246842c64e1640ea39dcb04d6d8f430fae7ba311b465db0e4d0f", "", "root" ], [ "e", "6591b78cf7cbb592df63faf08b08bce25b6eb4795b6d077cffe7eeef54f5c4e2", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "a07382f2047b309ebb8303d291bbe36556308187afdeaea697a464e7d3a93c53" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-10-24\n📝 Original message:Yes. I had pointed people in IRC to Knuth's literate programming, as\nan example of how we might document bitcoin.\n\n\nOn Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Martin Sustrik \u003csustrik at 250bpm.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On 23/10/13 23:07, Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e In short,\n\u003e\u003e consistency is more important than correctness.\n\u003e\n\u003e That's a nice and concise way to put it and any potential protocol\n\u003e documentation should start with a statement like that.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e However, I do not think that making it hard to find information about\n\u003e\u003e the details of the system is the way to go. Alternate implementations\n\u003e\u003e are likely inevitable, and in the long run probably a win for the\n\u003e\u003e ecosystem. If effort is put into accurately describing the rules, it\n\u003e\u003e should indeed carry a strong notice about it being descriptive rather\n\u003e\u003e than normative.\n\u003e\n\u003e One interesting question is whather alternative implementations are more\n\u003e likely to get it wrong because the protocol description is wrong or\n\u003e because the authors misunderstood the reference implementation source code.\n\u003e\n\u003e Extensive documentation of the source code, a la Knuth's literate\n\u003e programming, may be some kind of a middle ground.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If someone is willing to work on that, I am (and likely many people in\n\u003e\u003e #bitcoin-dev are) available for any questions about the protocol and\n\u003e\u003e its semantics.\n\u003e\n\u003e Ok. Several people expressed an interest in the topic, so I'll give it a\n\u003e try and see how it fares.\n\u003e\n\u003e Martin\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e October Webinars: Code for Performance\n\u003e Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.\n\u003e Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from\n\u003e the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register \u003e\n\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\n\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nSenior Software Engineer and open source evangelist\nBitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/", "sig": "8d88a6dad7ecec2480a5c69d51e27981c8cf8faad925c917fae56f8440878f24e575e453360ccb1439e324db4deb64c7af5f717bd0ca80269ef287950c07bdd1" }