Bitcoin Forum
September 15, 2019, 08:48:50 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Must all nodes run Bitcoin core  (Read 181 times)
victorkimba17
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 113
Merit: 3


View Profile
March 29, 2018, 10:55:14 AM
Merited by ETFbitcoin (1)
 #1

i have a simple question.

Bitcoin core is a reference implementation of bitcoin. Can we run other implementation of bitcoin , such as in Python, Java, or Ruby , as bitcoin node on mainnet ?

I suppose we can.
1568537330
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568537330

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568537330
Reply with quote  #2

1568537330
Report to moderator
1568537330
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568537330

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568537330
Reply with quote  #2

1568537330
Report to moderator
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1568537330
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568537330

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568537330
Reply with quote  #2

1568537330
Report to moderator
1568537330
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568537330

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568537330
Reply with quote  #2

1568537330
Report to moderator
mattcode
Copper Member
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 275
Merit: 21


View Profile
March 29, 2018, 11:18:04 AM
Merited by mprep (1), achow101 (1), ETFbitcoin (1)
 #2

Yes, there are other full node implementations to run. bcoin is one written in JavaScript, and btcd is another written in Go.
Kogs
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 86
Merit: 12


View Profile
March 29, 2018, 11:23:09 AM
 #3

Yes it's possible.

There are several implementations of the bitcoin protocol which can act as a full node.

You can see a list of available implementations here https://coin.dance/nodes.

You need to scroll down to "Bitcoin Node Implementations" section.
victorkimba17
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 113
Merit: 3


View Profile
March 29, 2018, 11:24:18 AM
 #4

Yes, there are other full node implementations to run. bcoin is one written in JavaScript, and btcd is another written in Go.

Thanks.
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1342


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2018, 01:21:28 PM
 #5

As long as they satisfy the consensus rules provided by the reference implementation, they're good to go.

Or to be absolutely precise, as long as they satisfy the rules which consensus currently enforces.  It just happens to be the case that most people use what tends to be referred to as the "reference implementation".  It doesn't mean that one implementation sets the rules that all other nodes are forced to abide by. 

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1873



View Profile
March 29, 2018, 06:16:45 PM
 #6

As long as they satisfy the consensus rules provided by the reference implementation, they're good to go.

Or to be absolutely precise, as long as they satisfy the rules which consensus currently enforces.  It just happens to be the case that most people use what tends to be referred to as the "reference implementation".  It doesn't mean that one implementation sets the rules that all other nodes are forced to abide by. 

Provide an example of any consensus rules that have ever been enforced on the Bitcoin network that were not introduced by the developers working on the core client.


Note to Bitcointalk.org: DooMAD consistently uses carefully crafted statements like these to undermine the working and proven model of bitcoin development, and has consistently used carefully crafted language to support other (bad) actors in the bitcoin space to undermine the working & proven model of bitcoin development.

Vires in numeris
achow101
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 2729


bc1qshxkrpe4arppq89fpzm6c0tpdvx5cfkve2c8kl


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2018, 06:44:27 PM
Merited by DooMAD (2)
 #7

Provide an example of any consensus rules that have ever been enforced on the Bitcoin network that were not introduced by the developers working on the core client.
BIP 91 Reduced threshold for enforcing Segwit activation. It happened but code enforcing BIP 91 was never merged into Bitcoin Core. The author of the BIP is also not someone that many would consider to be a Bitcoin Core developer.

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1873



View Profile
March 29, 2018, 07:23:30 PM
 #8

Provide an example of any consensus rules that have ever been enforced on the Bitcoin network that were not introduced by the developers working on the core client.
BIP 91 Reduced threshold for enforcing Segwit activation. It happened but code enforcing BIP 91 was never merged into Bitcoin Core. The author of the BIP is also not someone that many would consider to be a Bitcoin Core developer.

BIP 91 wasn't actually enforced by the Bitcoin network, only among the miners that adopted it. There was no consensus adoption of BIP 91.

It was a proxy to get Segwit activation signalling above a level that made BIP 141 (i.e. Segwit) a certainty. BIP 141 was enforced on the Bitcoin network, not BIP 91.

Vires in numeris
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1432



View Profile
March 29, 2018, 07:25:58 PM
 #9

Provide an example of any consensus rules that have ever been enforced on the Bitcoin network that were not introduced by the developers working on the core client.

Regardless of the examples that anyone comes up with, the fact is that Bitcoin Core does not define consensus.  The choices of the users (merchants, wallet creators, exchanges, miners, mining pools, etc) define the consensus.  At the moment the users are choosing to use the rules of Bitcoin Core as the current set of consensus rules.  At any time in the future, the users could change their minds and choose some other source of consensus rules (such as some other software).

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1873



View Profile
March 29, 2018, 07:53:47 PM
 #10

Provide an example of any consensus rules that have ever been enforced on the Bitcoin network that were not introduced by the developers working on the core client.

Regardless of the examples that anyone comes up with, the fact is that Bitcoin Core does not define consensus.  The choices of the users (merchants, wallet creators, exchanges, miners, mining pools, etc) define the consensus.  At the moment the users are choosing to use the rules of Bitcoin Core as the current set of consensus rules.  At any time in the future, the users could change their minds and choose some other source of consensus rules (such as some other software).

That's true.


Regardless of that, it's not a good idea to have competing consensus rules on the same network. Consensus on the rules, and consequently on the validity of blocks, is what makes the Bitcoin network stable, and hence provides a fundamental part of it's market value (i.e. the Bitcoin price).

Promoting forking of the network in anything but the most dire circumstances is very reckless, and very anti-social. Why would you want to threaten the value of everyone's BTC over non-issues?



The way to handle technical proposals in a way that is responsible is to discuss it with the rest of the developers. If that can't be achieved, trying to disenfranchise a minority of Bitcoin users by promoting a contentious hard fork is morally highly questionable: it's far more respectful to everyone simply to release a new coin using the consensus rules rejected by the other Bitcoin developers. I think anyone that's been following the various external fork battles can reasonably conclude that, every unrealised fork and every fork that did happen has been woefully ineffective in it's stated purpose and achieved questionable market share. And some Bitcoin forks were clearly entirely cynical in their genuine motives.

This is not to say that the Core team could not become corrupted or make poor choices of direction in future, nobody's perfect. But this issue should be highlighted in the fullest way possible, and if that's to be so, it should be made clear that in Bitcoin's history up to now, the free-for-all reality of the consensus rules in Bitcoin has only ever been used in a malign way.

Vires in numeris
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1342


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2018, 06:51:32 PM
Merited by Quickseller (1)
 #11

Provide an example of any consensus rules that have ever been enforced on the Bitcoin network that were not introduced by the developers working on the core client.

Regardless of the examples that anyone comes up with, the fact is that Bitcoin Core does not define consensus.  The choices of the users (merchants, wallet creators, exchanges, miners, mining pools, etc) define the consensus.  At the moment the users are choosing to use the rules of Bitcoin Core as the current set of consensus rules.  At any time in the future, the users could change their minds and choose some other source of consensus rules (such as some other software).

That's true.


Regardless of that, it's not a good idea to have competing consensus rules on the same network. Consensus on the rules, and consequently on the validity of blocks, is what makes the Bitcoin network stable, and hence provides a fundamental part of it's market value (i.e. the Bitcoin price).

Promoting forking of the network in anything but the most dire circumstances is very reckless, and very anti-social. Why would you want to threaten the value of everyone's BTC over non-issues?

It frankly doesn't matter what you think is or isn't a "good idea" or "responsible".  None of it changes the fact that my statement was factually correct.  It's not "carefully crafted language", it's merely how the damn thing works by design.  Users choose the code, devs simply produce it.  No amount of you trying to twist the narrative to imply otherwise is going to change that.  You can name any number of examples of forks you perceive to be malignant, but it still doesn't change the part where everyone's free to run what they want and you have no business telling them they shouldn't just because you don't personally approve.  It's not your decision.  I have no intention of undermining development, but I do take great pleasure in undermining you at every available opportunity you hand me on a platter.  Now stop being such a delicate and paranoid little snowflake, we've been over this enough times already.  I honestly thought it would have sunk in by now.  However the free-for-all reality is used, it's still the reality, so deal with it already.


4rzun4
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 623
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 31, 2018, 07:39:20 AM
 #12

Yes of course we should be able to run bitcoin with the best possible, so that result in get also appropriate and maximal.

Talk merit
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 244
Merit: 17

Register for Fit to Talk through me


View Profile WWW
March 31, 2018, 11:21:18 AM
 #13

Why would anyone want to run a node with anything other than core. It seems to be efficient and stable, and it works on most platforms. It is updated and enhanced on a regular basis as well.

Who knows what will be included in other node programs. It doesn't seem wise to me to risk using them.

The Talk Merit projects
 - Jet Cash has set up a number of projects for Bitcoin Talk members Click here to see the list.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!