Actually, what we want is that you can run 'unauthorized' code on the chain. What you can't do is run it on a separate unauthorized chain.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Actually, what we want is that you can run 'unauthorized' code on the chain. What you can't do is run it on a separate unauthorized chain.
When I first read that licence, very early on, it seemed to me you can just remove the symbols, change the init key, and then you could run another chain based on this, but I don't know. It is certainly not a very rigorous licence.
But I think the code is still a bit of a mess, and for example for a while golos and steem nodes were trying to post blocks to each other's network. A clear network protocol specification is required before we can really open it up to other implementations.
I am very interested in this because of the possibilities of building other systems on, like enabling the distribution of the tables related to rpc plugins directly instead of having to process them (version changes and changes of enabled plugins makes a shared file unusable). messaging/email systems integration also.
This evening it seems like every public RPC node in the network is broken too, xeroc's jesta's, even the steemit one isn't giving me any joy. The rpc node requirements are onerous and breaking it down is the only way it could become less of an epic job to run it.
These are all problems that will not be very nice if they are left for more than 6 months I'd say.
Yeah, for steem to really get cranking it really needs to have a protocol spec first, so that compliance testing can be done. There is also of course security measures against rogue witnesses. Ultimately even there is no real way to prove code on a server is unauthorised without getting a shell on it.
@l0k1
Do you realize that you are now saying exactly-- exactly-- what I have been saying for months about the API?