By Bitcoin Aldizkaria - Duela 3 hilabete - Irakurketa Denbora: 5 minutu
Ez hautsi erabiltzaile-espazioa!
“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
Ez hautsi erabiltzaile-espazioa. Hau da Linus Torvaldek Linux nukleoa garatzeko urrezko araua. Linuxen, edo sistema eragileen, oro har, sistema eragileen izaera ezagutzen ez duzuenontzat, nukleoa sistema eragile baten bihotza eta arima da. Nukleoa da benetan hardwarea kudeatzen duena, biltegiratze eta RAM artean bitak mugituz, RAM eta CPU artean gauzak kalkulatzen diren heinean, eta hardware mailan kontrolatu behar diren benetako ordenagailuko gailu eta pieza txiki guztiak.
Sistema eragile baterako idatzitako aplikazio edo programa bakoitzak nukleoarekin elkarreragin behar du. Photoshop edo Telegram deskargatzen duzunean, programa horrek egiten ari den guztia, funtsean, nukleoa deitzera mugatzen da. "Aizu nukleoa, hartu idatzi berri dudana eta prozesatu eta bidali sareko konexio baten bidez zerbitzarira". "Aizu nukleoa, hartu nik egindako kolore-aldaketa tonu honetara, atera RAMetik eta bidali CPUra alda dezan, eta berriro jarri RAMera".
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 mundu osoko kode irekiko proiektu garrantzitsuenetako bat da, garrantzitsuena ez bada. Android Linux-en exekutatzen da, backend azpiegituren erdia (gehiago ez bada) Linux-en exekutatzen da. Zure bizitzaren atzeko planoan gauza informatizatuak kontrolatzen dituzten sistema txertatuak Linux-en exekutatu ere kontuan hartuko ez zenuke. Mundua literalki Linux-en exekutatzen da. Agian ez zuen mahaigaina hartu Linux erabiltzaile autista askok gertatu nahi zuten bezala, baina isil-isilik jan zuen ia atzeko planoan inor ohartu gabe.
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, bi taldeak erabiltzaileak dira.
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.
Orduan, zer egiten dugu hemen? Adostasun-aldaketaren bidez iragazten edo hausten saiatzeko, Inskripzioak egiten edo Ordinalak negoziatzen dituzten pertsonek "ez hautsi erabiltzaile-espazioa"-ren maxima hausten da. Ezer ez egiteak, erabiltzaile-klase batek beste erabiltzaile-klase baten erabiltzaile-espazioa hautsi dezake. Funtsean, ez dago arazo honen konponbiderik urrezko araua urratzea, edo orain erabiltzaile-espazioa hautsita duten erabiltzaile-klaseari sareko errealitate berrietara egokitzea eta haien aplikazioen eta erabileraren bertsio bideragarria mantentzea ahalbidetzen duen funtzionaltasuna ezartzea izan ezik. kasuak.
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.
Bide horretatik joaten bagara, zertan ari gara benetan hemen? Ezin dizut esan une horretan zer egiten ari garen, baina esan dezaket jada ez dela sistema banatu eta neutral bat eraikitzen ari.
Jatorrizko iturria: Bitcoin Aldizkaria