1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jeremie.dl@gmail.com>) id 1XbYcS-0004VR-CJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:32:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.175; envelope-from=jeremie.dl@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XbYcR-0007f7-Jv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:32:16 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id wn1so6094025obc.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.130.196 with SMTP id og4mr6028766oeb.1.1412703130171;
Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.18.9 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:32:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJqsvLB9JtvB=HmxYvg2HY_HFyecD=sekOO1moQg0PRs6BPa=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsOpbWllIER1Ym9pcy1MYWNvc3Rl?= <jeremie.dl@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(jeremie.dl[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1XbYcR-0007f7-Jv
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Partial wallet rescan
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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:32:16 -0000
Hi all,
Before starting to implement a patch for a specific need, I would like
to be sure that it was not written already and available somewhere.
This list is probably my best chance.
I would like to add an optional parameter <block_heigh> to "-rescan",
from which the rescan would then start. When performing the wallet
rescan, everything before the block number <block_heigh> would be
ignored.
Thus, it would do pretty much the same thing as the wallet birthday
mechanism (which relies on nTimeFirstKey), the difference being that
the point in time where to start would be *explicitly* given by the
user, at launch time, on the command line. Another possiblity is to
provide as parameter a time stamp instead of a block height; the
interesting part for me is that anyway that information is explicitly
provided by the user.
Regards,
Jeremie
--
Jeremie Dubois-Lacoste, PhD.
Belgian Bitcoin Association, Director.
Universit=C3=A9 Libre de Bruxelles, Post-Doctoral Researcher.
|
