On 02/14/2015 05:13 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> So stop wasting your time. Help get the consensus critical code out of
> Bitcoin Core and into a stand-alone libconsensus library...
done
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus
> ...
> Then ... when the next time we decide to soft-fork Bitc
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> He didn't said "a project for all possible language bindings", just
>> java bindings. Other languages' bindings would be separate projects.
>
>
> Yes/no/sorta.
>
> Java/JNA bindings can be used from Python, Ruby, Javascript, PHP as well as
> di
I strongly suggest you take a look at swig for doing this. It's very
straightforward generating bindings in an automated fashion with it.
http://www.swig.org/
You could probably have it done in one or two days with Swig.
Once you do the Java bindings with it, it'll be a few adjustments and
you'l
On 2/19/15 9:30 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> Java/JNA bindings can be used from Python, Ruby, Javascript, PHP as
> well as dialects of Haskell, Lisp, Smalltalk and a bunch of more
> obscure languages like Scala, Kotlin, Ceylon, etc.
>
> It makes more sense to talk about bindings to particular runtimes
>
> He didn't said "a project for all possible language bindings", just
> java bindings. Other languages' bindings would be separate projects.
Yes/no/sorta.
Java/JNA bindings can be used from Python, Ruby, Javascript, PHP as well as
dialects of Haskell, Lisp, Smalltalk and a bunch of more obscur
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
>> Second, I think that squeezing all possible language bindings into a project
>> is also unproductive.
>
> The language binding would be an independent and separately hosted project
> only
On Feb 19, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> First, I strongly disagree with voting here for reasons that I hope others
> will elaborate on.
I meant voting by pledging on the lighthouse project, not here on the list.
Sorry for not stating this explicitelly.
> Second, I think that squeezi
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Tamas Blummer
wrote:
> I launched a Lighthouse project to add Java Language Binding to lib
> consensus. Let's turn the debate to a constructive vote.
First, I strongly disagree with voting here for reasons that I hope others
will elaborate on. Second, I think
On Feb 19, 2015, at 6:22 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> I launched a Lighthouse project to add Java Language Binding to lib
> consensus. Let's turn the debate to a constructive vote.
>
> See on https://www.reddit.com/r/LighthouseProjects
I should have added the project description here, as above i
Libconsensus will create an in-process alternative to the border router setup I
currently advocate in a production environment.
It is not sufficient yet, since only checking scripts, but is the move I was
long waiting for.
I launched a Lighthouse project to add Java Language Binding to lib con
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 18 February 2015 22:32:05 GMT-05:00, Troy Benjegerdes
wrote:
>The work that Tamas did re-implementing is probably one of the most
>valuable
>things he ever did.
...in the same way going to university may be one of the more valuable things
yo
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 06:13:06PM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:
>
> On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> > Yes you are dicking around.
>
> I thought I was clear, that I am using Bitcoin Core as border router talking
> to its P2P interface.
>
> The reimplementation of consensus code
On 2015-02-15 17:13, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>
>> Yes you are dicking around.
>
> I thought I was clear, that I am using Bitcoin Core as border router
> talking to its P2P interface.
>
> The reimplementation of consensus code helped me to deeply und
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 06:13:06PM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:
>
> On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> > Yes you are dicking around.
>
> I thought I was clear, that I am using Bitcoin Core as border router talking
> to its P2P interface.
Ah, sorry, that wasn't clear to me.
> The
On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> Yes you are dicking around.
I thought I was clear, that I am using Bitcoin Core as border router talking to
its P2P interface.
The reimplementation of consensus code helped me to deeply understand the
protocol, aids debugging
and now comes hand
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:04:49AM -0800, Adam Back wrote:
> Strongly with Peter on this. That its highly complex to maintain strict
> consensus between bitcoin versions, does not justify consensus rewrite
> experiments; it tells you that the risk is exponentially worse and people
> should use and
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 03:23:47PM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> Peter,
>
> You did not address me but libbitcoin. Since our story and your evaluation is
> probably similar, I chime in.
>
> On Feb 14, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> > So stop wasting your time. Help get the consensus c
On Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:23:47 PM Tamas Blummer wrote:
> We have seen that the consensus critical code practically extends to
> Berkley DB limits or OpenSSL laxness, therefore it is inconceivable that a
> consensus library is not the same as Bitcoin Core, less its P2P service
> rules, walle
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> Peter,
> We have seen that the consensus critical code practically extends to Berkley
> DB limits or OpenSSL laxness, therefore
> it is inconceivable that a consensus library is not the same as Bitcoin
> Core, less its P2P service rules, wall
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Adam Back wrote:
> That its highly complex to maintain strict consensus between bitcoin
> versions, does not justify consensus rewrite experiments
Correct. However, those maintenance costs absolutely do justify working
towards formal proofs of correctness for th
Strongly with Peter on this. That its highly complex to maintain strict
consensus between bitcoin versions, does not justify consensus rewrite
experiments; it tells you that the risk is exponentially worse and people
should use and rally around libconsensus.
I would advise any bitcoin ecosystem p
Peter,
You did not address me but libbitcoin. Since our story and your evaluation is
probably similar, I chime in.
On Feb 14, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> So stop wasting your time. Help get the consensus critical code out of
> Bitcoin Core and into a stand-alone libconsensus library,
22 matches
Mail list logo
