blob: e9cc078ccb519dd881bcc260628f82acd1fb79c1 (
plain)
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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <thomasv1@gmx.de>) id 1WzQiR-0003SQ-QC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:24:52 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmx.de
designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender)
client-ip=212.227.17.22; envelope-from=thomasv1@gmx.de;
helo=mout.gmx.net;
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WzQiP-0001do-SR
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:24:51 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.27] ([84.97.180.55]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with
ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LtrKX-1WZt9i1RMj-011DnG for
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:24:43 +0200
Message-ID: <53A97C1A.2060906@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:24:42 +0200
From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv1@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CAC1+kJNjcPkaHiR8mzofwXE4+4UX5nmxX5Q3rZv37v-K40p1Tw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+s+GJDVBQVu8yH9jLu_rQmk=dsJuMUctT-iK0zzOJRYgE8k9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAC1+kJOQ2uBo2peYKZJyPSQL6qzk6Yu-cF-tPs3GzVS6cAc53w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+s+GJBT9u+LMqTfrTwUQrGbnrqj2u==1kmx17uQyY8899O8sw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJBsrV2mjotM9==1M8Cm8EjoQ4Oh0BN3cdUOARryy2VwAA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJBsrV2mjotM9==1M8Cm8EjoQ4Oh0BN3cdUOARryy2VwAA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:6mcgRzC0wZAO+szyifP6zTCbHvwTnC3Lyc7lhmZ1HsTerxTJgtW
/b8l1lQTh+iS5MOzoNB1GrZmpeug+CDEa256/YSRBkL37qss8rKAoEm/je46KL/pxPs+tZz
ubDq9echPCQZ1Qh6smZ4S7t4srgfIRvTHwzhy36II9za/9gGjvr+de0omG/OLtv2i3r8w3W
yNPInJ1Hi+Lfpk4OfxBKg==
X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-)
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
(thomasv1[at]gmx.de)
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [212.227.17.22 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (thomasv1[at]gmx.de)
X-Headers-End: 1WzQiP-0001do-SR
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 13:24:52 -0000
Le 24/06/2014 11:44, Wladimir a écrit :
>> But IMO this is a passed stage. SPV wallets w/ Bloom filtering can
>> work without any special servers, so why require a 'close binding' to
>> a trusted bitcoin core?
>
> To clarify (and not piss off ThomasV :-): I do not think the idea of
> having servers with a reputation of their own is a passed stage. There
> are many things that cannot be done at SPV level security with just
> the P2P protocol yet. So having fewer but more trusted Electrum
> servers is a reasonable compromise.
>
Thanks for that :)
Note that my goal is to make the Electrum servers as trustless as
possible, and not to rely on some sort of 'reputation'.
Thomas
|
