Initial SourceCode.

v1.0.0.0

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
+Contributing to CryptoVerification
+============================
+
+The CryptoVerification project operates an open contributor model where anyone is
+welcome to contribute towards development in the form of peer review, testing
+and patches. This document explains the practical process and guidelines for
+contributing.
+
+Firstly in terms of structure, there is no particular concept of "Core
+developers" in the sense of privileged people. Open source often naturally
+revolves around meritocracy where longer term contributors gain more trust from
+the developer community. However, some hierarchy is necessary for practical
+purposes. As such there are repository "maintainers" who are responsible for
+merging pull requests as well as a "lead maintainer" who is responsible for the
+release cycle, overall merging, moderation and appointment of maintainers.
+
+
+Contributor Workflow
+--------------------
+
+The codebase is maintained using the "contributor workflow" where everyone
+without exception contributes patch proposals using "pull requests". This
+facilitates social contribution, easy testing and peer review.
+
+To contribute a patch, the workflow is as follows:
+
+  - Fork repository
+  - Create topic branch
+  - Commit patches
+
+The project coding conventions in the [developer notes](doc/developer-notes.md)
+must be adhered to.
+
+In general [commits should be atomic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_commit#Atomic_commit_convention)
+and diffs should be easy to read. For this reason do not mix any formatting
+fixes or code moves with actual code changes.
+
+Commit messages should be verbose by default consisting of a short subject line
+(50 chars max), a blank line and detailed explanatory text as separate
+paragraph(s), unless the title alone is self-explanatory (like "Corrected typo
+in init.cpp") in which case a single title line is sufficient. Commit messages should be
+helpful to people reading your code in the future, so explain the reasoning for
+your decisions. Further explanation [here](http://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/).
+
+If a particular commit references another issue, please add the reference, for
+example `refs #1234`, or `fixes #4321`. Using the `fixes` or `closes` keywords
+will cause the corresponding issue to be closed when the pull request is merged.
+
+Please refer to the [Git manual](https://git-scm.com/doc) for more information
+about Git.
+
+  - Push changes to your fork
+  - Create pull request
+
+The title of the pull request should be prefixed by the component or area that
+the pull request affects. Valid areas as:
+
+  - *Consensus* for changes to consensus critical code
+  - *Docs* for changes to the documentation
+  - *Qt* for changes to cryptoverification-qt
+  - *Minting* for changes to the minting code
+  - *Net* or *P2P* for changes to the peer-to-peer network code
+  - *RPC/REST* for changes to the RPC or REST APIs
+  - *Scripts and tools* for changes to the scripts and tools
+  - *Tests* for changes to the cryptoverification unit tests or QA tests
+  - *Trivial* should **only** be used for PRs that do not change generated
+    executable code. Notably, refactors (change of function arguments and code
+    reorganization) and changes in behavior should **not** be marked as trivial.
+    Examples of trivial PRs are changes to:
+    - comments
+    - whitespace
+    - variable names
+    - logging and messages
+  - *Utils and libraries* for changes to the utils and libraries
+  - *Wallet* for changes to the wallet code
+
+Examples:
+
+    Consensus: Add new opcode for BIP-XXXX OP_CHECKAWESOMESIG
+    Net: Automatically create hidden service, listen on Tor
+    Qt: Add feed bump button
+    Trivial: Fix typo in init.cpp
+
+If a pull request is specifically not to be considered for merging (yet) please
+prefix the title with [WIP] or use [Tasks Lists](https://help.github.com/articles/basic-writing-and-formatting-syntax/#task-lists)
+in the body of the pull request to indicate tasks are pending.
+
+The body of the pull request should contain enough description about what the
+patch does together with any justification/reasoning. You should include
+references to any discussions (for example other tickets or mailing list
+discussions).
+
+At this stage one should expect comments and review from other contributors. You
+can add more commits to your pull request by committing them locally and pushing
+to your fork until you have satisfied all feedback.
+
+Squashing Commits
+---------------------------
+If your pull request is accepted for merging, you may be asked by a maintainer
+to squash and or [rebase](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase) your commits
+before it will be merged. The basic squashing workflow is shown below.
+
+    git checkout your_branch_name
+    git rebase -i HEAD~n
+    # n is normally the number of commits in the pull
+    # set commits from 'pick' to 'squash', save and quit
+    # on the next screen, edit/refine commit messages
+    # save and quit
+    git push -f # (force push to GitHub)
+
+If you have problems with squashing (or other workflows with `git`), you can
+alternatively enable "Allow edits from maintainers" in the right GitHub
+sidebar and ask for help in the pull request.
+
+Please refrain from creating several pull requests for the same change.
+Use the pull request that is already open (or was created earlier) to amend
+changes. This preserves the discussion and review that happened earlier for
+the respective change set.
+
+The length of time required for peer review is unpredictable and will vary from
+pull request to pull request.
+
+
+Pull Request Philosophy
+-----------------------
+
+Patch sets should always be focused. For example, a pull request could add a
+feature, fix a bug, or refactor code; but not a mixture. Please also avoid super
+pull requests which attempt to do too much, are overly large, or overly complex
+as this makes review difficult.
+
+
+### Features
+
+When adding a new feature, thought must be given to the long term technical debt
+and maintenance that feature may require after inclusion. Before proposing a new
+feature that will require maintenance, please consider if you are willing to
+maintain it (including bug fixing). If features get orphaned with no maintainer
+in the future, they may be removed by the Repository Maintainer.
+
+
+### Refactoring
+
+Refactoring is a necessary part of any software project's evolution. The
+following guidelines cover refactoring pull requests for the project.
+
+There are three categories of refactoring, code only moves, code style fixes,
+code refactoring. In general refactoring pull requests should not mix these
+three kinds of activity in order to make refactoring pull requests easy to
+review and uncontroversial. In all cases, refactoring PRs must not change the
+behavior of code within the pull request (bugs must be preserved as is).
+
+Project maintainers aim for a quick turnaround on refactoring pull requests, so
+where possible keep them short, un-complex and easy to verify.
+
+
+"Decision Making" Process
+-------------------------
+
+The following applies to code changes to the CryptoVerification project, and is not to be
+confused with overall CryptoVerification Network Protocol consensus changes.
+
+Whether a pull request is merged into CryptoVerification rests with the project merge
+maintainers and ultimately the project lead.
+
+Maintainers will take into consideration if a patch is in line with the general
+principles of the project; meets the minimum standards for inclusion; and will
+judge the general consensus of contributors.
+
+In general, all pull requests must:
+
+  - have a clear use case, fix a demonstrable bug or serve the greater good of
+    the project (for example refactoring for modularisation);
+  - be well peer reviewed;
+  - follow code style guidelines;
+
+Patches that change CryptoVerification consensus rules are considerably more involved than
+normal because they affect the entire ecosystem and so must be preceded by
+extensive discussions and clear detailing. While each case will be different,
+one should be prepared to expend more time and effort than for other kinds of
+patches because of increased peer review and consensus building requirements.
+
+
+### Peer Review
+
+Anyone may participate in peer review which is expressed by comments in the pull
+request. Typically reviewers will review the code for obvious errors, as well as
+test out the patch set and opine on the technical merits of the patch. Project
+maintainers take into account the peer review when determining if there is
+consensus to merge a pull request (remember that discussions may have been
+spread out over GitHub, forums, email, and Slack discussions). The following
+language is used within pull-request comments:
+
+  - ACK means "I have tested the code and I agree it should be merged";
+  - NACK means "I disagree this should be merged", and must be accompanied by
+    sound technical justification (or in certain cases of copyright/patent/licensing
+    issues, legal justification). NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be
+    disregarded;
+  - utACK means "I have not tested the code, but I have reviewed it and it looks
+    OK, I agree it can be merged";
+  - Concept ACK means "I agree in the general principle of this pull request";
+  - Nit refers to trivial, often non-blocking issues.
+
+Reviewers should include the commit hash which they reviewed in their comments.
+
+Project maintainers reserve the right to weigh the opinions of peer reviewers
+using common sense judgement and also may weight based on meritocracy: Those
+that have demonstrated a deeper commitment and understanding towards the project
+(over time) or have clear domain expertise may naturally have more weight, as
+one would expect in all walks of life.
+
+Where a patch set affects consensus critical code, the bar will be set much
+higher in terms of discussion and peer review requirements, keeping in mind that
+mistakes could be very costly to the wider community. This includes refactoring
+of consensus critical code.
+
+Where a patch set proposes to change the CryptoVerification consensus, it must have been
+discussed extensively on the forums and Slack, be accompanied by a widely
+discussed Proposal and have a generally widely perceived technical consensus of being
+a worthwhile change based on the judgement of the maintainers.
+
+### Finding Reviewers
+
+As most reviewers are themselves developers with their own projects, the review
+process can be quite lengthy, and some amount of patience is required. If you find
+that you've been waiting for a pull request to be given attention for several
+months, there may be a number of reasons for this, some of which you can do something
+about:
+
+  - It may be because of a feature freeze due to an upcoming release. During this time,
+    only bug fixes are taken into consideration. If your pull request is a new feature,
+    it will not be prioritized until the release is over. Wait for release.
+  - It may be because the changes you are suggesting do not appeal to people. Rather than
+    nits and critique, which require effort and means they care enough to spend time on your
+    contribution, thundering silence is a good sign of widespread (mild) dislike of a given change
+    (because people don't assume *others* won't actually like the proposal). Don't take
+    that personally, though! Instead, take another critical look at what you are suggesting
+    and see if it: changes too much, is too broad, doesn't adhere to the
+    [developer notes](doc/developer-notes.md), is dangerous or insecure, is messily written, etc.
+    Identify and address any of the issues you find. Then ask e.g. on Slack if someone could give
+    their opinion on the concept itself.
+  - It may be because your code is too complex for all but a few people. And those people
+    may not have realized your pull request even exists. A great way to find people who
+    are qualified and care about the code you are touching is the
+    [Git Blame feature](https://help.github.com/articles/tracing-changes-in-a-file/). Simply
+    find the person touching the code you are touching before you and see if you can find
+    them and give them a nudge. Don't be incessant about the nudging though.
+  - Finally, if all else fails, ask on Slack or elsewhere for someone to give your pull request
+    a look. If you think you've been waiting an unreasonably long amount of time (month+) for
+    no particular reason (few lines changed, etc), this is totally fine. Try to return the favor
+    when someone else is asking for feedback on their code, and universe balances out.
+
+
+Release Policy
+--------------
+
+The project leader is the release manager for each CryptoVerification release.
+
+Copyright
+---------
+
+By contributing to this repository, you agree to license your work under the
+MIT license unless specified otherwise in `contrib/debian/copyright` or at
+the top of the file itself. Any work contributed where you are not the original
+author must contain its license header with the original author(s) and source.

COPYING

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+Copyright (c) 2009-2015 Bitcoin Developers
+Copyright (c) 2014-2015 Dash Developers
+Copyright (c) 2015-2018 CryptoVerification Developers
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
+all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
+THE SOFTWARE.

INSTALL

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Building CryptoVerification
+
+Use the autogen script to prepare the build environment.
+
+    ./autogen.sh
+    ./configure
+    make
+
+Always verify the signatures and checksums.
+
+See doc/build-*.md for instructions on building cryptoverificationd,
+the intended-for-services, no-graphical-interface, reference
+implementation of CryptoVerification.