Author: Jorge Timón 2015-08-19 23:27:51
Published on: 2015-08-19T23:27:51+00:00
In an email exchange between developers, the topic of consensus code being subject to commit policies came up. Eric Lombrozo stated that consensus code should not be subject to the same commit policies as other code. He suggested separating the two clearly and communicating the difference succinctly to laypeople. Jorge Timon via bitcoin-dev agreed with Lombrozo but noted that once libconsensus Bitcoin Core is complete, it can be moved to a separate repository like libsecp256k1, so it's just another implementation and not "the specification of the consensus rules." There was some disagreement on this point, as Eric Voskuil did not consider Bitcoin Core just another implementation as long as libconsensus was built directly out of the bitcoind repository.Voskuil asked how stakeholders would maintain consensus when their individual intent diverges with a direct dependency on libconsensus. Timon suggested forking the libconsensus project and doing the schism/controversial/contentious hard fork there, since modifying libconsensus will be much easier than modifying Bitcoin Core. Finally, Voskuil expressed his interest in working together to achieve their mutual goal, and Timon said he was more than happy to collaborate. However, he had only directly contacted libbitcoin because he was subscribed to the list at the time. Other attempts to get feedback from other alternative implementations have been mostly ignored threads in bitcoin-dev.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T19:55:15.207747+00:00