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
85
86
87
88
89
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jtimon@monetize.io>) id 1WzQk0-0000zj-Au
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:26:28 +0000
Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com ([209.85.217.177])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WzQjy-0000S0-Ih
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:26:28 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id u10so417646lbd.22
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=C1E2CHuukak2+afX9WhYwq5vDgDKLh+Bbio61436H+8=;
b=Cgsc/Lz4ue7dRaltJYtXTf2fCWnHMcPLgun/k/XkNX9CEZKrj2/GFNQGS/hM/f5p0Z
sfdLDNP6NXOLLxYvDriGTcYALt5MtsImPFAM60Di4AJ5xTgNS9rWJ+PJUVNa+dezxb3x
hNic8toU/4rRtUIaTKS+BgfC7cL2+myLnLkmi0vE6GGfKK0OBPtfvjN0Glx+tzLUOqO9
F2NMaH40omQtDd8SkFlhnEpBn5LrGLzKSp8oWPsXD4TQ8NJaQtlASrZydUA8MxrqVj17
Y2GF483DmAIQCYl7aGz4GUoBXeJ9B9sOs0zTV1CoS13FQUCuDu24v6Kmf1V6aejoV+zY
R41w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQndz+XyF7hdgCq7UgaYY0/MoLaU4AVDKpMsR2JpfxIV4Rtd59wTpQNQ+hcwlBgdiM5p4QOY
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.97.163 with SMTP id eb3mr565167lbb.67.1403616379461;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.185.4 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [85.53.135.230]
In-Reply-To: <F8592D15-B751-4DD9-A573-6373934C8D44@bitsofproof.com>
References: <CAC1+kJNjcPkaHiR8mzofwXE4+4UX5nmxX5Q3rZv37v-K40p1Tw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJDVBQVu8yH9jLu_rQmk=dsJuMUctT-iK0zzOJRYgE8k9w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC1+kJOQ2uBo2peYKZJyPSQL6qzk6Yu-cF-tPs3GzVS6cAc53w@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1bNs4ahMzd7AfSH3P39Cx1rkmCkjnOMOM9T2Anr5wVOw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC1+kJMn3p5H6A8GGiuF56d411zC4qsTomuy7A5e0+OQT78FGQ@mail.gmail.com>
<F8592D15-B751-4DD9-A573-6373934C8D44@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:26:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC1+kJPJKwS+ydKO-HTNg8bb93mXEs8Hexycw9E9Fbv_sAQXoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1WzQjy-0000S0-Ih
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <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, 24 Jun 2014 13:26:28 -0000
On 6/24/14, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> wrote:
> 3. Services e.g. exchange, payment processor .... This is where core +
> indexing server talking SPV to core is the right choice
I think this is my main question, what's the advantage of having the
processes talking via the p2p protocol instead of something more
direct when you control both processes?
Wladimir, of course headers-first is generally good, and of course
nobody will be force to separate the code in a way he doesn't like, I
was just testing the waters to see what people had in mind, since I
realized the ideas could be more different than I had assumed.
I don't have any issues with electrum, I'm just not convinced by the
arguments that say that the indexes must be necessarily out of the
core, specially when some of them could be committed in the future.
So I'm all in favor of modularity and competing codebases, I'm just
not convinced that the "core full-node" must be necessarily restricted
to validation only (for example, I think it should maintain a minimal
and non-optimized mining functionality,even if it's only used for
testing purposes).
So far it is great that everybody seems to agree that the wallet code
needs to be separated.
Thanks everyone for sharing your views on the subject.
|
