Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.177; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f177.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201307231052.14210.andyparkins@gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0Ou1xF=LeLVu_wH1-XgJ1PavDV7_NHoDevo3R9+4z-ZfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<201307231030.14139.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<20130723094204.GB6385@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
	<201307231052.14210.andyparkins@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:56:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgwnCOeehv8V7dhNUmfB9jiSc9zSL1CeBOnHELyNwSFHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] HTTP REST API for bitcoind
Precedence: list

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is actually no such index being maintained by default, and doing so
>> is an unnecessary burden IMHO (you need to enable -txindex since 0.8 to
>> get this). Of course, if enabled, it can be exposed.
>
> Wow.  I'm surprised at that.  How does a newly received transaction have its
> inputs verified then?  Multiple linear brute force searches of the block chain
> for every new transaction?  Or is it that transactions are only recorded if
> they were in a block, and just their presence indicates they're valid?

The block chain is not involved at all to verify transactions, it's
just a historical
record to serve to other nodes, and to do wallet rescans with.

For validation, a separate database with just unspent transaction
outputs is used (around 230 MB now).

-- 
Pieter