Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WXwPK-0003lf-RV
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:35:30 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.172; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f172.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com ([209.85.213.172])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WXwPK-00012g-5E
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:35:30 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hn18so6733952igb.17
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 09 Apr 2014 10:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.55.40 with SMTP id o8mr11454908igp.42.1397064924841; Wed,
	09 Apr 2014 10:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.70.131 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJBpvqqu=XEojyekx5su+JfYLwz+zsbo8L0=5t6s-_b33w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+s+GJCn9U2kmyMH6w3o+m99NCfO0ws=SccvGBYJv07WVuF=eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAADm4BCEFCiOpNzUThPPHUamP2256izU8pwD3nerLCxks0wENA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJBpvqqu=XEojyekx5su+JfYLwz+zsbo8L0=5t6s-_b33w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 19:35:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJB0zOT5aETWMAw5rSC-PPtcQqayZRAi=-niK3xkzKkt_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10caa992cedd04f69f86b7
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WXwPK-00012g-5E
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Bitcoind-in-background mode for SPV
	wallets
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:35:31 -0000

--047d7b10caa992cedd04f69f86b7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Brian Hoffman <brianchoffman@gmail.com>wrote:

> How would this affect the user in terms of disk storage? They're going to
> get hammered on space constraints aren't they? If it's not required how
> likely are users to enable this?
>

If they make the (conscious) choice to run a full node they will require
the bandwidth and disk space to run it.

The difference with running Bitcoin Core as wallet will be that they can
choose their own wallet to go with the full node.

Wladimir

--047d7b10caa992cedd04f69f86b7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"">On Wed, Apr 9, =
2014 at 5:42 PM, Brian Hoffman <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bria=
nchoffman@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">brianchoffman@gmail.com</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">How would this affect the u=
ser in terms of disk storage? They&#39;re going to get hammered on space co=
nstraints aren&#39;t they? If it&#39;s not required how likely are users to=
 enable this?</div>

</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>If they make the (conscious) choice =
to run a full node they will require the bandwidth and disk space to run it=
.<br></div><div><br>The difference with running Bitcoin Core as wallet will=
 be that they can choose their own wallet to go with the full node.<span cl=
ass=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>

</font></span></div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><div><br=
></div><div>Wladimir<br><br></div></font></span></div></div></div></div></d=
iv>

--047d7b10caa992cedd04f69f86b7--