Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:18:24 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: cbitcoin - Bitcoin implementation in C. Currently in development.  (Read 18440 times)
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
September 29, 2012, 03:58:37 PM
 #141

Does anyone understand the RAND_add OpenSSL function. How do I figure out what to pass into the entropy argument? I literally have no clue, the docs are terrible. I'm adding entropy from a text string given through the terminal eg. dskjbapohspigpivsbvo98sg2pib3r2oivbspvow48fiqpbfivbsv=s like a monkey on a type-writer.

Well keyboard input is not the best source of entropy so I'm using dev/random. This is just for the addressGenerator example program.

Quote
My preference for a repository is that everything compile by just pushing a button. No external dependencies (especially "wget", ick). It should not be necessary to install anything else. No python, no separate repositories, etc...

cbitcoin compiles with no external dependencies, only the standard C library. However it requires that you implement functions when you use the library through weak linking.

Quote
Learning new languages is part of being a good programmer.

And what there is no point in learning a new language? It's just a waste of time then. I don't like C++ at all. It annoys me. Unfortunately I have no choice but to read the C++ bitcoin code to help with my code.

Quote
This having been said, the GPL is the kiss of death for this project. It is an encumberance that virtually assures that cbitcoin will never become serious to corporations.

I'm not interested in corporations that want to mix my project with their own copyright restricted software. I'm using a "copyleft" license for a good reason.

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481019504
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481019504

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481019504
Reply with quote  #2

1481019504
Report to moderator
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 04:25:30 PM
 #142

Just use OpenSSL for bignum and move on.

OpenSSL is a giant pain in the ass to build.

My preference for a repository is that everything compile by just pushing a button. No external dependencies (especially "wget", ick). It should not be necessary to install anything else. No python, no separate repositories, etc...

I'm surprised by this.  I mean, openssl might be hard to use and to link, but what's the alternative exactly?  Reinventing the wheel each time you do some code with cryptography?
misterbigg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile WWW
September 29, 2012, 04:28:51 PM
 #143

I'm surprised by this.  I mean, openssl might be hard to use and to link, but what's the alternative exactly?  Reinventing the wheel each time you do some code with cryptography?

Unfortunately, there is no alternative. I haven't had a need for OpenSSL in any of my projects. I tried to amalgamate it for a friend of mine but there's no chance of that happening, the code base is too difficult to work with.

jgarzik
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 04:28:57 PM
 #144

Just use OpenSSL for bignum and move on.

OpenSSL is a giant pain in the ass to build.

My preference for a repository is that everything compile by just pushing a button. No external dependencies (especially "wget", ick). It should not be necessary to install anything else. No python, no separate repositories, etc...

I'm surprised by this.  I mean, openssl might be hard to use and to link, but what's the alternative exactly?  Reinventing the wheel each time you do some code with cryptography?

Yeah, it is silly and not realistic for any large software, because your maintenance effort scales up to involve tracking $N third party repos for security fixes and other updates.

When Fedora or SuSE Linux distros push out zero-day fixes for OpenSSL or zlib, for example, your project remains vulnerable.


Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 04:51:48 PM
 #145

Unfortunately, there is no alternative. I haven't had a need for OpenSSL in any of my projects. I tried to amalgamate it for a friend of mine but there's no chance of that happening, the code base is too difficult to work with.

That's quite ironic for someone who just wrote:

If someone is better at C than C++ I have to question their proficiency in general. Learning new languages is part of being a good programmer.

I mean, for a good programmer, learning how to reuse existing code seems to me at least as important as learning new languages.

Lots of people link their code to the openssl libraries.  They might be complaining about the process being painful, but in the end they eventually do it.  They don't say:  "nah screw this, it's just too difficult".
misterbigg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile WWW
September 29, 2012, 04:57:56 PM
 #146

Lots of people link their code to the openssl libraries.  They might be complaining about the process being painful, but in the end they eventually do it.  They don't say:  "nah screw this, it's just too difficult".

I said it was too difficult to amalgamate (https://github.com/vinniefalco/Amalgamate).

grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 05:01:27 PM
 #147

I said it was too difficult to amalgamate (https://github.com/vinniefalco/Amalgamate).

Ok.  My bad.   I did not know about this concept.  I guess it's kind of a recent technique and openssl being quite an old library, it might not fit well into it.
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
September 30, 2012, 09:57:15 AM
 #148

The reason I don't have a makefile is because it's not a trivial thing to compile and I'm not good with makefiles. A makefile would be nice be it's not something I want to produce right now. Anyone is highly welcome to create a makefile however. I do ask that the tree structure of the source and header files remains intact, so you'd need some sort of bash code to work through that (One thing that made me use python instead).

Still, it would be great if we could compile your library with a classic "./configure && make"

I'm not good enough a GNU programmer, but if someone here is, please help.

Meanwhile, I'll read the automake manual and I'll see what I can do.

Anyway your project really seem like an awesome step towards a GNU version of bitcoin (C language + GNU license).  Please keep up.
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
September 30, 2012, 01:56:55 PM
 #149

Thanks grondilu. If you or anyone else can help create a Makefile that would be excellent. It might be best to create a fork of cbitcoin on github for this task and when it is completed a pull request can be made to the master branch. This is a good idea even if you cannot get it to work since others may be able to modify it and get it to work.

And yes I'll keep it up the best I can. I've been thinking about how the plans for this project can be improved and I hopefully I'll be able to announce these improvements in the next few weeks when I have everything sorted. If anyone has any suggestions it's a good time to give them to me now. :-)

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
wabber
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85


View Profile
September 30, 2012, 02:49:57 PM
 #150

If someone is better at C than C++ I have to question their proficiency in general. Learning new languages is part of being a good programmer.

So someone who doesn't like C++ and prefers to use C is a bad programmer? Well I prefer C.
misterbigg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile WWW
September 30, 2012, 05:15:27 PM
 #151

So someone who doesn't like C++ and prefers to use C is a bad programmer? Well I prefer C.

No but disregard my comment, I see why the decision was made, thanks to all for providing their insights.

deadserious
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121



View Profile
October 01, 2012, 03:46:33 AM
 #152

This having been said, the GPL is the kiss of death for this project. It is an encumberance that virtually assures that cbitcoin will never become serious to corporations.

Agree 100%.  And not only limiting for corporations.  Even freeware, public domain, small independent but commercial software will be hindered by this.  LGPL I might understand, but GPL?  That's a serious problem.
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
October 01, 2012, 09:55:15 AM
 #153

Agree 100%.  And not only limiting for corporations.  Even freeware, public domain, small independent but commercial software will be hindered by this.  LGPL I might understand, but GPL?  That's a serious problem.

The linux kernel is under GPL.  That did not prevent Google from using it with Androïd.

Also, if they don't want to use cbitcoin because it's GPL, at least the very existence of cbitcoin will show them it's possible to port bitcoin into C.  So they'll rewrite their own C code.   That's good enough to me.
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
October 01, 2012, 06:57:27 PM
 #154

The GPL is a serious problem? For some people maybe. For me? No.

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
October 01, 2012, 07:00:23 PM
 #155

The GPL is a serious problem? For some people maybe. For me? No.

Don't mind the freedom haters.  It's your code, license it how you'd like.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
deadserious
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 07:15:19 PM
 #156

Agree 100%.  And not only limiting for corporations.  Even freeware, public domain, small independent but commercial software will be hindered by this.  LGPL I might understand, but GPL?  That's a serious problem.

The linux kernel is under GPL.  That did not prevent Google from using it with Androïd.

Linking to anything GPL requires your code to also be GPL (or license compatible).  That means that you cannot link to the library without your software also being open source. For me to use cbitcoin I would have to compile it as an EXE and then use it by calling out to the process. 

That is why many library developers chose to go with LGPL. It allows you to link to the open source code and protect your source code.  If we changed or improved upon cbitcoin in any way, those changes would still have to be made public.
deadserious
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 07:16:51 PM
 #157

The GPL is a serious problem? For some people maybe. For me? No.

It is your problem if you hope this to have any serious adoption. 

If you are intending to keep it small, niche and useless to a vast portion of the community that would use it, then no, I guess it's not your problem.
jgarzik
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
October 02, 2012, 07:18:15 PM
 #158

That is why many library developers chose to go with LGPL. It allows you to link to the open source code and protect your source code.  If we changed or improved upon cbitcoin in any way, those changes would still have to be made public.

+1

Most libraries are LGPL'd or similar.

A GPL'd library requires that all users be GPL'd.


Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
October 02, 2012, 07:43:19 PM
 #159

That means that you cannot link to the library without your software also being open source.


Yes, that's the point.

If you are intending to keep it small, niche and useless to a vast portion of the community that would use it, then no, I guess it's not your problem.

Well grondilu pointed out the linux kernel. That's not exactly "small, niche and useless to a vast portion of the community that would use it".

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
October 02, 2012, 07:48:25 PM
 #160

woohoo!!! licence flame war incomming!

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 »  All
  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!