By Bitcoin Mekasini - 3 masina talu ai - Taimi Faitau: 5 minute
Aua le motusia le Userspace!
“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
Aua le motusia le avanoa fa'aoga. Ole tulafono auro lea a Linus Torvald mo le atinaʻeina ole fatu Linux. Mo i latou o loʻo faitau i lenei mea e le masani i le natura o Linux, poʻo faiga faʻaoga lautele, o le fatu o le fatu ma le agaga o se faiga faʻaogaina. O le fatu o le mea tonu lea e faʻatautaia ai meafaigaluega, faʻanofo solo i le va o le teuina ma le RAM, i le va o le RAM ma le PPU aʻo faʻatulagaina mea, ma mea laiti uma ma vaega o le komepiuta moni e manaʻomia ona pulea i le tulaga o meafaigaluega.
So'o se talosaga po'o polokalame e tusia mo se faiga fa'aoga e tatau ona fegalegaleai ma le fatu. A e siiina Photoshop, poʻo Telegram, o mea uma o loʻo faia e le polokalame e faʻafefe i lalo i le valaʻau o le fatu. "Hey kernel, ave le mea na faatoa ou taina ma faʻagasolo ma lafo i luga o se fesoʻotaʻiga fesoʻotaʻiga i le server." "Hey kernel, ave le suiga lanu na ou faia i lenei pitch, ave ese mai le RAM ma lafo i le PPU e sui ai, ona toe tuʻu lea i le 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
O Linux o se tasi o galuega sili ona taua, pe a le o le mea sili ona taua, tatala punaoa i le lalolagi atoa. O loʻo faʻaogaina le Android i luga o Linux, o le afa o atinaʻe pito i tua (pe a le sili atu) e taʻavale i Linux. Faiga fa'apipi'i e pulea ai ituaiga uma o mea fa'akomepiuta i tua o lou olaga e te le manatu e fa'aoga i Linux. O loʻo taʻavale moni le lalolagi i Linux. Atonu e le mafai ona ave i luga o le laulau e pei ona fia vaai i ai le toatele o tagata autistic Linux, ae na te 'ai filemu toetoe lava o mea uma i tua e aunoa ma se tasi na matauina.
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, o vaega uma e lua e fa'aoga.
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.
O le a la le mea tatou te faia iinei? Ina ia taumafai e faamama, poʻo le solia e ala i se suiga autasi, o tagata o loʻo faia Faʻamaumauga poʻo Fefaʻatauaʻiga Ordinals e matua solia ai le faʻatonuga o le "aua le motusia avanoa faʻaoga." O le le faia o se mea e mafai ai e se tasi vasega o tagata fa'aoga ona talepe le avanoa fa'aoga o le isi vasega o tagata fa'aoga. E matua leai lava se vaifofo i lenei faafitauli vagana ai le solia o le tulafono auro, po o le faatinoina o galuega faatino e mafai ai e le vasega o tagata faaaoga 'o latou userspace ua motusia i le taimi nei e fetuutuunai i le mea moni fou o le fesootaiga ma tausia se lomiga aoga o latou talosaga ma faaaogaina. mataupu.
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.
Afai tatou te o i lalo o lena auala, o le a la le mea o loo tatou faia iinei? E le mafai ona ou taʻuina atu ia te oe le mea o loʻo matou faia i lena taimi, ae e mafai ona ou taʻu atu ia te oe e le o toe fausia se faiga tufatufaina ma le le mautonu.
Punavai autu: Bitcoin tusiata