Libbitcoin Consensus - Revision history

Evoskuil: /* Example */

2017-03-08T17:38:35Z

Example

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 8 March 2017
Line 27:		Line 27:

	constexpr uint32_t tx_input_index = 0;		constexpr uint32_t tx_input_index = 0;
	constexpr uint32_t flags = ~~verify_flags_standard~~ \| ~~verify_flags_mandatory~~;		constexpr uint32_t flags = verify_flags_p2sh \|
			verify_flags_checklocktimeverify \| verify_flags_dersig;

	const std::string tx(VERIFY_TX);		const std::string tx(VERIFY_TX);

Evoskuil: /* Dependencies */ remove openssl dependency and make libsecp256k1 non-optional.

2016-05-27T22:22:42Z

Dependencies: remove openssl dependency and make libsecp256k1 non-optional.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 27 May 2016
Line 57:		Line 57:

	==Dependencies==		==Dependencies==
	* [https://www.openssl.org openssl] (optional, default)		* [https://github.com/bitcoin/secp256k1 libsecp256k1]
	* [https://github.com/bitcoin/secp256k1 libsecp256k1] ~~(optional, experimental)~~		* [http://www.boost.org boost test] (tests only)
	* [http://www.boost.org~~/doc/libs/1_55_0/libs/test/doc/html/index.html~~ boost test] (tests only)

	==See Also==		==See Also==

Evoskuil: /* References */

2015-07-12T21:25:11Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:25, 12 July 2015
Line 65:		Line 65:

	==References==		==References==

			[[Category:Open Source]]
			[[Category:Software‏‎]]

Evoskuil: /* Background */

2015-05-20T20:15:24Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:15, 20 May 2015
Line 45:		Line 45:
	The consensus library exists to provide consensus validation identical in outcome to [[Bitcoind\|bitcoind]]. The integral [[Libbitcoin_Common\|libbitcoin]] script engine provides the same checks. However given the complexity of the validation code it is effectively impossible to prove that two implementations are identical in outcome, even with extensive testing. This effectively makes the bitcoind ''implementation'' a standard (as opposed to an RFC or BIP).		The consensus library exists to provide consensus validation identical in outcome to [[Bitcoind\|bitcoind]]. The integral [[Libbitcoin_Common\|libbitcoin]] script engine provides the same checks. However given the complexity of the validation code it is effectively impossible to prove that two implementations are identical in outcome, even with extensive testing. This effectively makes the bitcoind ''implementation'' a standard (as opposed to an RFC or BIP).

	That has helped stifle the adoption of alternative full node implementations. While it has been argued that consensus risk from any particular implementation is a red herring<ref>[https://blog.conformal.com/the-bitcoin-consensus-red-herring The Bitcoin Consensus Red Herring]</ref> it was decided to give ~~libbitcoin~~ developers and users the option. Following much deliberation<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150214.111556.61403f4c.en.html Libbitcoinconsensus Discussion on Libbitcoin Mailing List]</ref> and a recommendation by [[Peter_Todd\|Peter Todd]]<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150325.083041.77f52cd3.en.html Response to Peter Todd "Twinkle Fingers" Post on Bitcoin-Dev]</ref><ref>[https://plus.google.com/u/0/+AvatarEquis/posts/JjFnTf3iY1E "Peter Todd takes the gloves off on this letter to Libbitcoin Devs" - AvatarX]</ref> it was decided to package this library independently in order to provide better consistency, a leaner dependency, and more formal isolation from bitcoind. The library is free of both libbitcoin and bitcoind dependencies.<ref>[https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/blob/master/README.md Instructions for Building libbitcoin-consensus]</ref>		That has helped stifle the adoption of alternative full node implementations. While it has been argued that consensus risk from any particular implementation is a red herring<ref>[https://blog.conformal.com/the-bitcoin-consensus-red-herring The Bitcoin Consensus Red Herring]</ref> it was decided to give Libbitcoin developers and users the option. Following much deliberation<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150214.111556.61403f4c.en.html Libbitcoinconsensus Discussion on Libbitcoin Mailing List]</ref> and a recommendation by [[Peter_Todd\|Peter Todd]]<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150325.083041.77f52cd3.en.html Response to Peter Todd "Twinkle Fingers" Post on Bitcoin-Dev]</ref><ref>[https://plus.google.com/u/0/+AvatarEquis/posts/JjFnTf3iY1E "Peter Todd takes the gloves off on this letter to Libbitcoin Devs" - AvatarX]</ref> it was decided to package this library independently in order to provide better consistency, a leaner dependency, and more formal isolation from bitcoind. The library is free of both libbitcoin and bitcoind dependencies.<ref>[https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/blob/master/README.md Instructions for Building libbitcoin-consensus]</ref>

	==Verification==		==Verification==

Evoskuil: add ref link

2015-05-19T07:53:30Z

add ref link

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:53, 19 May 2015
Line 45:		Line 45:
	The consensus library exists to provide consensus validation identical in outcome to [[Bitcoind\|bitcoind]]. The integral [[Libbitcoin_Common\|libbitcoin]] script engine provides the same checks. However given the complexity of the validation code it is effectively impossible to prove that two implementations are identical in outcome, even with extensive testing. This effectively makes the bitcoind ''implementation'' a standard (as opposed to an RFC or BIP).		The consensus library exists to provide consensus validation identical in outcome to [[Bitcoind\|bitcoind]]. The integral [[Libbitcoin_Common\|libbitcoin]] script engine provides the same checks. However given the complexity of the validation code it is effectively impossible to prove that two implementations are identical in outcome, even with extensive testing. This effectively makes the bitcoind ''implementation'' a standard (as opposed to an RFC or BIP).

	That has helped stifle the adoption of alternative full node implementations. While it has been argued that consensus risk from any particular implementation is a red herring<ref>[https://blog.conformal.com/the-bitcoin-consensus-red-herring The Bitcoin Consensus Red Herring]</ref> it was decided to give libbitcoin developers and users the option. Following much deliberation<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150214.111556.61403f4c.en.html Libbitcoinconsensus Discussion on Libbitcoin Mailing List]</ref> and a recommendation by [[Peter_Todd\|Peter Todd]]<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150325.083041.77f52cd3.en.html Response to Peter Todd "Twinkle Fingers" Post on Bitcoin-Dev]</ref> it was decided to package this library independently in order to provide better consistency, a leaner dependency, and more formal isolation from bitcoind. The library is free of both libbitcoin and bitcoind dependencies.<ref>[https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/blob/master/README.md Instructions for Building libbitcoin-consensus]</ref>		That has helped stifle the adoption of alternative full node implementations. While it has been argued that consensus risk from any particular implementation is a red herring<ref>[https://blog.conformal.com/the-bitcoin-consensus-red-herring The Bitcoin Consensus Red Herring]</ref> it was decided to give libbitcoin developers and users the option. Following much deliberation<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150214.111556.61403f4c.en.html Libbitcoinconsensus Discussion on Libbitcoin Mailing List]</ref> and a recommendation by [[Peter_Todd\|Peter Todd]]<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150325.083041.77f52cd3.en.html Response to Peter Todd "Twinkle Fingers" Post on Bitcoin-Dev]</ref><ref>[https://plus.google.com/u/0/+AvatarEquis/posts/JjFnTf3iY1E "Peter Todd takes the gloves off on this letter to Libbitcoin Devs" - AvatarX]</ref> it was decided to package this library independently in order to provide better consistency, a leaner dependency, and more formal isolation from bitcoind. The library is free of both libbitcoin and bitcoind dependencies.<ref>[https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/blob/master/README.md Instructions for Building libbitcoin-consensus]</ref>

	==Verification==		==Verification==

Evoskuil: c++ include link

2015-05-14T10:17:44Z

c++ include link

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:17, 14 May 2015
Line 52:		Line 52:
	==Bindings==		==Bindings==
	The library exposes a C++ interface and includes [http://www.swig.org SWIG] generated bindings for other languages. Libbitcoin is a C++ toolkit, the underlying bitcoind sources are C++, and SWIG bindings are easily generated over C++. For these reasons the native interface is C++, in contrast to the libbitcoinconsensus interface which is C.		The library exposes a C++ interface and includes [http://www.swig.org SWIG] generated bindings for other languages. Libbitcoin is a C++ toolkit, the underlying bitcoind sources are C++, and SWIG bindings are easily generated over C++. For these reasons the native interface is C++, in contrast to the libbitcoinconsensus interface which is C.
	* C++ (native)		* [https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/blob/master/include/bitcoin/consensus/export.hpp C++] (native)
	* [https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/tree/master/bindings/java Java]		* [https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/tree/master/bindings/java Java]
	* [https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/tree/master/bindings/python Python]		* [https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/tree/master/bindings/python Python]

Evoskuil: links for bindings

2015-05-14T10:16:11Z

links for bindings

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:16, 14 May 2015
Line 53:		Line 53:
	The library exposes a C++ interface and includes [http://www.swig.org SWIG] generated bindings for other languages. Libbitcoin is a C++ toolkit, the underlying bitcoind sources are C++, and SWIG bindings are easily generated over C++. For these reasons the native interface is C++, in contrast to the libbitcoinconsensus interface which is C.		The library exposes a C++ interface and includes [http://www.swig.org SWIG] generated bindings for other languages. Libbitcoin is a C++ toolkit, the underlying bitcoind sources are C++, and SWIG bindings are easily generated over C++. For these reasons the native interface is C++, in contrast to the libbitcoinconsensus interface which is C.
	* C++ (native)		* C++ (native)
	* Java		* [https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/tree/master/bindings/java Java]
	* Python		* [https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/tree/master/bindings/python Python]

	==Dependencies==		==Dependencies==

Evoskuil: /* Background */

2015-05-14T10:14:08Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:14, 14 May 2015
Line 45:		Line 45:
	The consensus library exists to provide consensus validation identical in outcome to [[Bitcoind\|bitcoind]]. The integral [[Libbitcoin_Common\|libbitcoin]] script engine provides the same checks. However given the complexity of the validation code it is effectively impossible to prove that two implementations are identical in outcome, even with extensive testing. This effectively makes the bitcoind ''implementation'' a standard (as opposed to an RFC or BIP).		The consensus library exists to provide consensus validation identical in outcome to [[Bitcoind\|bitcoind]]. The integral [[Libbitcoin_Common\|libbitcoin]] script engine provides the same checks. However given the complexity of the validation code it is effectively impossible to prove that two implementations are identical in outcome, even with extensive testing. This effectively makes the bitcoind ''implementation'' a standard (as opposed to an RFC or BIP).

	That has helped stifle the adoption of alternative full node implementations. While it has been argued that ~~this concern~~ is a red herring<ref>[https://blog.conformal.com/the-bitcoin-consensus-red-herring The Bitcoin Consensus Red Herring]</ref> it was decided to give libbitcoin developers and users the option. Following much deliberation<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150214.111556.61403f4c.en.html Libbitcoinconsensus Discussion on Libbitcoin Mailing List]</ref> and a recommendation by [[Peter_Todd\|Peter Todd]]<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150325.083041.77f52cd3.en.html Response to Peter Todd "Twinkle Fingers" Post on Bitcoin-Dev]</ref> it was decided to package this library independently in order to provide better consistency, a leaner dependency, and more formal isolation from bitcoind. The library is free of both libbitcoin and bitcoind dependencies.<ref>[https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/blob/master/README.md Instructions for Building libbitcoin-consensus]</ref>		That has helped stifle the adoption of alternative full node implementations. While it has been argued that consensus risk from any particular implementation is a red herring<ref>[https://blog.conformal.com/the-bitcoin-consensus-red-herring The Bitcoin Consensus Red Herring]</ref> it was decided to give libbitcoin developers and users the option. Following much deliberation<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150214.111556.61403f4c.en.html Libbitcoinconsensus Discussion on Libbitcoin Mailing List]</ref> and a recommendation by [[Peter_Todd\|Peter Todd]]<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150325.083041.77f52cd3.en.html Response to Peter Todd "Twinkle Fingers" Post on Bitcoin-Dev]</ref> it was decided to package this library independently in order to provide better consistency, a leaner dependency, and more formal isolation from bitcoind. The library is free of both libbitcoin and bitcoind dependencies.<ref>[https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/blob/master/README.md Instructions for Building libbitcoin-consensus]</ref>

	==Verification==		==Verification==

Evoskuil: Add background and bindings reasoning.

2015-05-14T08:08:47Z

Add background and bindings reasoning.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:08, 14 May 2015
Line 41:		Line 41:
	return result == verify_result_eval_true ? 0 : 1;		return result == verify_result_eval_true ? 0 : 1;
	}		}

			==Background==
			The consensus library exists to provide consensus validation identical in outcome to [[Bitcoind\|bitcoind]]. The integral [[Libbitcoin_Common\|libbitcoin]] script engine provides the same checks. However given the complexity of the validation code it is effectively impossible to prove that two implementations are identical in outcome, even with extensive testing. This effectively makes the bitcoind ''implementation'' a standard (as opposed to an RFC or BIP).

			That has helped stifle the adoption of alternative full node implementations. While it has been argued that this concern is a red herring<ref>[https://blog.conformal.com/the-bitcoin-consensus-red-herring The Bitcoin Consensus Red Herring]</ref> it was decided to give libbitcoin developers and users the option. Following much deliberation<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150214.111556.61403f4c.en.html Libbitcoinconsensus Discussion on Libbitcoin Mailing List]</ref> and a recommendation by [[Peter_Todd\|Peter Todd]]<ref>[https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150325.083041.77f52cd3.en.html Response to Peter Todd "Twinkle Fingers" Post on Bitcoin-Dev]</ref> it was decided to package this library independently in order to provide better consistency, a leaner dependency, and more formal isolation from bitcoind. The library is free of both libbitcoin and bitcoind dependencies.<ref>[https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus/blob/master/README.md Instructions for Building libbitcoin-consensus]</ref>

			==Verification==
			This library incorporates the files that have been identified as "consensus critical" in bitcoind. It is straightforward to verify the implementation against bitcoind by overlaying the bitcoind sources and performing a difference option. With each tagged release of bitcoind this library is updated with the files identified in the [https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/Makefile.am libbitcoinconsensus] build.

	==Bindings==		==Bindings==
	The library exposes a C++ interface and includes [http://www.swig.org SWIG] generated bindings for other languages.		The library exposes a C++ interface and includes [http://www.swig.org SWIG] generated bindings for other languages. Libbitcoin is a C++ toolkit, the underlying bitcoind sources are C++, and SWIG bindings are easily generated over C++. For these reasons the native interface is C++, in contrast to the libbitcoinconsensus interface which is C.
	* C++ (native)		* C++ (native)
	* Java		* Java
Line 55:		Line 63:
	==See Also==		==See Also==
	* [[Libbitcoin]]		* [[Libbitcoin]]

			==References==

Evoskuil: Initial content.

2015-05-14T06:55:53Z

Initial content.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:55, 14 May 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~This page~~ is a ~~stub~~.		The [https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus libbitcoin-consensus] library is an optional dependency of [[Libbitcoin_Blockchain\|libbitcoin-blockchain]]. It is conceptually redundant with native functionality within [[Libbitcoin_Common\|libbitcoin]].

			==Example==
			#include <cstdint>
			#include <string>
			#include <vector>
			#include <bitcoin/consensus.hpp>

			// For bc::decode_base16 utility.
			#include <bitcoin/bitcoin.hpp>

			#define VERIFY_TX \
			"01000000017d01943c40b7f3d8a00a2d62fa1d560bf739a2368c180615b0a793" \
			"7c0e883e7c000000006b4830450221008f66d188c664a8088893ea4ddd968902" \
			"4ea5593877753ecc1e9051ed58c15168022037109f0d06e6068b7447966f751d" \
			"e8474641ad2b15ec37f4a9d159b02af68174012103e208f5403383c77d5832a2" \
			"68c9f71480f6e7bfbdfa44904becacfad66163ea31ffffffff01c8af00000000" \
			"00001976a91458b7a60f11a904feef35a639b6048de8dd4d9f1c88ac00000000"

			#define PREVOUT_SCRIPT \
			"76a914c564c740c6900b93afc9f1bdaef0a9d466adf6ee88ac"

			// Validate a transaction against a single previous output script.
			int main()
			{
			using namespace libbitcoin::consensus;

			constexpr uint32_t tx_input_index = 0;
			constexpr uint32_t flags = verify_flags_standard \| verify_flags_mandatory;

			const std::string tx(VERIFY_TX);
			const std::string ps(PREVOUT_SCRIPT);

			std::vector<uint8_t> tx_data, ps_data;
			/* bool */ bc::decode_base16(tx_data, tx);
			/* bool */ bc::decode_base16(ps_data, ps);

			const auto result = verify_script(&tx_data[0], tx_data.size(),
			&ps_data[0], ps_data.size(), tx_input_index, flags);

			return result == verify_result_eval_true ? 0 : 1;
			}

			==Bindings==
			The library exposes a C++ interface and includes [http://www.swig.org SWIG] generated bindings for other languages.
			* C++ (native)
			* Java
			* Python

			==Dependencies==
			* [https://www.openssl.org openssl] (optional, default)
			* [https://github.com/bitcoin/secp256k1 libsecp256k1] (optional, experimental)
			* [http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_55_0/libs/test/doc/html/index.html boost test] (tests only)

			==See Also==
			* [[Libbitcoin]]