Re: Segwit details? N + 2*numtxids + numvins > N, segwit uses more space than 2MB HF
It is not possible to create an algorithm for verifying turing-complete structures.
In other words.
Imagine that you have a tool which produces '1' if the realization matches consensus and '0' if the realization is wrong and can produce hard-forks and earthquakes.
Who is responsible for bugs in this tool?
How would you check it? With another tool?
And the second objection.
We do not need to 'stone' the consensus code. The majority always has a right to change anything in consensus.
From the past experience talking with you I think you are just pretending to be a dumbass. But it is also possible that you don't understand the difference between the old stopping problem and the automated logical equivalency verification like the one used by ARM to verify the implementations of their namesake architectures.In other words.
Imagine that you have a tool which produces '1' if the realization matches consensus and '0' if the realization is wrong and can produce hard-forks and earthquakes.
Who is responsible for bugs in this tool?
How would you check it? With another tool?And the second objection.
We do not need to 'stone' the consensus code. The majority always has a right to change anything in consensus.
Every CAD/EDA tool vendor has tools to do automated verification and automated test vector generation. The obvious problems are:
1) those tools are closed source
2) those tools are very expensive
3) the input languages are hardware oriented: Verilog & VHDL mostly, with only recent additions of SystemC or similar high-level-synthesis tools.
That isn't even anything new like zk-SNARKs. Those tools were in use and on the market for more than 10 years. I had used some early prototypes of those tools (based on LISP) in school back in 20th century.