By Bitcoin Magazin - prije 3 mjeseca - Vrijeme čitanja: 5 minute
Ne razbijajte korisnički prostor!
“Mauro, SHUT THE FUCK UP!It's a bug alright - in the kernel. How long have you been a maintainer? And you *still* haven't learnt the first rule of kernel maintenance?If a change results in user programs breaking, it's a bug in the kernel. We never EVER blame the user programs. How hard can this be to Understand?” -Linus Torvalds
Ne razbijajte korisnički prostor. Ovo je zlatno pravilo Linusa Torvalda za razvoj Linux kernela. Za one od vas koji ovo čitate i koji nisu upoznati sa prirodom Linuxa, ili operativnih sistema uopšte, kernel je srce i duša operativnog sistema. Kernel je ono što zapravo upravlja hardverom, pomerajući delove između memorije i RAM-a, između RAM-a i CPU-a dok se stvari računaju, i svim malim uređajima i delovima stvarnog računara koje treba kontrolisati na nivou hardvera.
Svaka aplikacija ili program napisan za operativni sistem mora biti u interakciji sa kernelom. Kada preuzmete Photoshop ili Telegram, sve što program radi svodi se na to da u suštini poziva kernel. “Hej kernel, uzmi ono što sam upravo otkucao i obradi to i pošalji preko mrežne veze na server.” „Hej kernel, uzmi promenu boje koju sam napravio na ovu visinu, izvadi je iz RAM-a i pošalji u CPU da ga modifikuje, a zatim ga vrati u RAM.”
When the kernel is changed, in a somewhat similar fashion to Bitcoin, the chief goal of developers is to ensure that existing applications that assume a specific way to interact with the kernel do not break because of a change to the kernel. Sounds very familiar to Bitcoin and the necessity to maintain backwards compatibility for network consensus upgrades doesn’t it?
“Seriously. How hard is this rule to understand? We particularly don't break user space with TOTAL CRAP. I'm angry, because your whole email was so _horribly_ wrong, and the patch that broke things was so obviously crap. The whole patch is incredibly broken shit. It adds an insane error code (ENOENT), and then because it's so insane, it adds a few places to fix it up ("ret == -ENOENT ? -EINVAL : ret").
The fact that you then try to make *excuses* for breaking user space, and blaming some external program that *used* to work, is just shameful. It's not how we work.Fix your f*cking "compliance tool", because it is obviously broken. And fix your approach to kernel programming.” -Linus Torvalds
Linux je jedan od najvažnijih, ako ne i najvažniji projekat otvorenog koda u cijelom svijetu. Android radi na Linuxu, polovina pozadinske infrastrukture (ako ne i više) radi na Linuxu. Ugrađeni sistemi koji kontroliraju sve vrste kompjuteriziranih stvari u pozadini vašeg života za koje ne biste ni razmišljali o pokretanju na Linuxu. Svijet doslovno radi na Linuxu. Možda nije zauzeo desktop kao što su mnogi autistični korisnici Linuxa željeli da vide, ali je tiho pojeo gotovo sve ostalo u pozadini, a da to niko nije primijetio.
All of these applications and programs people use in the course of their daily lives depend on the assumption that Linux kernel developers will not break backwards compatibility in new versions of the kernel to allow their applications to continue functioning. Otherwise, anything running applications must continue using older versions of the kernel or take on the burden of altering their applications to interact with a breaking change in the kernel.
Bitcoin’s most likely path to success is a very similar road, simply becoming a platform that financial applications and tools are built on top of in such a way that most people using them won’t even realize or consider that “Bitcoin ate the world.” In a similar vein to Linux, that golden rule of “Don’t break userspace” applies tenfold. The problem is the nature of Bitcoin as a distributed consensus system, rather than a single local kernel running on one person’s machine, wildly changes what “breaking userspace” means.
It’s not just developers that can break userspace, users themselves can break userspace. The entire last year of Ordinals, Inscriptions, and BRC-20 tokens should definitively demonstrate that. This offers a very serious quandary when looking at the mantra of “Don’t break userspace” from the point of view of developers. As much as many Bitcoiners in this space do not like Ordinals, and are upset that their own use cases are being disrupted by the network traffic Ordinals users are creating, obje grupe su korisnici.
So how do developers confront this problem? One group of users is breaking userspace for another group of users. To enact a change that prevents the use of Ordinals or Inscriptions explicitly violates the mandates of don’t break userspace. I’m sure people want to say “Taproot broke userspace!” in response to this dilemma, but it did not. Taproot activation, and the allowance for witness data to be as large as the entire blocksize, did not break any pre-existing applications or uses built on top of Bitcoin. All it did was open the door for new applications and use cases.
Pa šta da radimo ovdje? Pokušati filtrirati, ili prekinuti promjenom konsenzusa, ljudi koji prave natpise ili trguju ordinalima znači suštinski kršiti maksimu „ne razbijajte korisnički prostor“. Ne činiti ništa dozvoljava jednoj klasi korisnika da razbije korisnički prostor druge klase korisnika. U osnovi nema rješenja za ovaj problem osim kršenja zlatnog pravila ili implementacije funkcionalnosti koja omogućava klasi korisnika čiji je korisnički prostor sada prekinut da se prilagode novoj stvarnosti mreže i održava održivu verziju svojih aplikacija i korištenja slučajevima.
Not breaking the userspace of Bitcoin is of critical importance for its continued success and functionality, but it is not as simple as “don’t change anything.” Dynamic changes in user behavior, that require no change to the actual protocol itself, can have the same effect at the end of the day as a breaking change to the protocol. Are developers supposed to pick and choose which applications’ userspace is broken to maintain that of another application? I would say no, and go further to say that anyone advocating for such behavior from developers is demanding them to act irresponsibly and in a way that harms users of the system. So what is the answer here?
There is no answer except to push forward and continue adding improvements to the protocol that allow applications being broken by the behavior of certain users to function in the presence of emergent changes in users’ behavior. Otherwise, you are asking developers to throw out the golden rule and effectively play kingmakers in regards to what use cases are viable to build on top of Bitcoin.
Ako krenemo tim putem, šta onda zapravo radimo ovdje? Ne mogu vam reći šta radimo u tom trenutku, ali mogu vam reći da se više ne gradi distribuiran i neutralan sistem.
Izvorni izvor: Bitcoin Časopis