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 ) id 1WzPdv-0006UM-MB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:16:07 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WzPdt-0006Eo-Ud for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:16:07 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id uz6so202969obc.38 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:16:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.143.37 with SMTP id sb5mr643076oeb.38.1403612160516; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:16:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:16:00 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yypx88EHRNeruHq6jfiJJ4lGNHQ Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Wladimir Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a81a03aea1904fc93ecbb X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WzPdt-0006Eo-Ud Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Plans to separate wallet from core X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:16:07 -0000 --047d7b3a81a03aea1904fc93ecbb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Although Pieter and I disagree with regard to issue #4351, we agree on > wanting to keep (or at least making) bitcoind as lean as possible. > Maintaining extra indices for others doesn't fit in there - that's > also why the address index patch was not merged. An 'index node' could > be a different animal. We definitely want to head in the direction of allowing a p2p node to be as useful as possible within its resource constraints and optional advertising of new (expensive) indexes is the way to go. Sometimes I wonder if we should have an RPC or new socket based method where additional programs could run along side Bitcoin Core and opt to handle a subset of p2p commands. But then I think, that seems like a lot of complexity for people who just want to help out the system, which I guess is the bulk of our network now. Keeping their lives simple should have a high priority. So a single unified program that just figures it out automatically rather than expecting users to assemble a bag of parts seems a goal worth striving for. --047d7b3a81a03aea1904fc93ecbb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Although Pieter and I disagree w= ith regard to issue #4351, we agree on
wanting to keep (or at least making) bitcoind as lean as possible.
Maintaining extra indices for others doesn't fit in there - that's<= br> also why the address index patch was not merged. An 'index node' co= uld
be a different animal.

We definitely want t= o head in the direction of allowing a p2p node to be as useful as possible = within its resource constraints and optional advertising of new (expensive)= indexes is the way to go.

Sometimes I wonder if we should have an RPC or new sock= et based method where additional programs could run along side Bitcoin Core= and opt to handle a subset of p2p commands. But then I think, that seems l= ike a lot of complexity for people who just want to help out the system, wh= ich I guess is the bulk of our network now. Keeping their lives simple shou= ld have a high priority. So a single unified program that just figures it o= ut automatically rather than expecting users to assemble a bag of parts see= ms a goal worth striving for.=C2=A0
--047d7b3a81a03aea1904fc93ecbb--