By Bitcoin Revista - hai 3 meses - Tempo de lectura: 5 minutos
Non rompas o espazo de usuario!
“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
Non rompas o espazo de usuario. Esta é a regra de ouro de Linus Torvald para o desenvolvemento do núcleo de Linux. Para aqueles de vostedes que lean isto e que non estean familiarizados coa natureza de Linux, ou os sistemas operativos en xeral, o núcleo é o corazón e a alma dun sistema operativo. O núcleo é o que realmente xestiona o hardware, movendo bits entre o almacenamento e a RAM, entre a RAM e a CPU a medida que se calculan as cousas, e todos os pequenos dispositivos e pezas da computadora real que deben ser controladas a nivel de hardware.
Cada aplicación ou programa escrito para un sistema operativo ten que interactuar co núcleo. Cando descargas Photoshop ou Telegram, todo o que está a facer ese programa redúcese a chamar esencialmente ao núcleo. "Oe kernel, colle o que acabo de escribir e procesao e envíao a través dunha conexión de rede ao servidor". "Oe kernel, toma o cambio de cor que fixen a este tono, sácao da memoria RAM e envíao á CPU para modificalo, despois colócao de novo na memoria 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 é un dos proxectos de código aberto máis importantes, se non o máis importante, de todo o mundo. Android funciona en Linux, a metade da infraestrutura de backend (se non moito máis) corre en Linux. Sistemas integrados que controlan todo tipo de cousas informáticas no fondo da túa vida que nin sequera considerarías executar en Linux. O mundo funciona literalmente en Linux. Quizais non se apoderase do escritorio como moitos usuarios autistas de Linux querían ver que ocorrese, pero comía tranquilamente case todo o demais en segundo plano sen que ninguén se decatara.
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, ambos grupos son usuarios.
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.
Entón, que facemos aquí? Intentar filtrar, ou romper por un cambio de consenso, as persoas que fan inscricións ou negocian ordinais é violar fundamentalmente a máxima de "non romper o espazo de usuario". Non facer nada permite que unha clase de usuarios rompa o espazo de usuario doutra clase de usuarios. Fundamentalmente non hai solución a este problema, salvo violar a regra de ouro, ou implementar unha funcionalidade que permita á clase de usuarios cuxo espazo de usuario está roto agora adaptarse ás novas realidades da rede e manter unha versión viable das súas aplicacións e uso. casos.
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.
Se imos por ese camiño, que estamos facendo realmente aquí? Non podo dicirche o que estamos a facer nese momento, pero podo dicirche que xa non está construíndo un sistema distribuído e neutral.
Orixe orixinal: Bitcoin Revista