Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WzNDd-0000Gl-NW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:40:49 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.178; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com ([209.85.213.178]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WzNDb-0002Bk-R0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:40:49 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hn18so251091igb.11 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:40:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.147.5 with SMTP id l5mr901943icv.89.1403602842042; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:40:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1bNs4ahMzd7AfSH3P39Cx1rkmCkjnOMOM9T2Anr5wVOw@mail.gmail.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> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:40:41 +0200 Message-ID: <CA+s+GJDxLdKvtEE72B4biJ+1s3Yurm6ZHEaRi8H8nGMDo+vNiw@mail.gmail.com> From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 (laanwj[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: 1WzNDb-0002Bk-R0 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 09:40:49 -0000 > The question is; what does this buy us, and is it worth the potentially huge > amount of time it could take? My gut feeling is we have bigger fish to fry. > There's plenty of work to do just on the core consensus code, making Bitcoin > Core into a competitive wallet as well would be an additional burden. I don't intend to work on that myself but that's up to the people that want to contribute to that. Once it's a separate project it could either be a big success, or it could slowly wither away. It can have a release cycle separate from the node. Likely faster. The organizational reason to split off the wallet is to get rid of that responsibility (and code) from the bitcoind repo. Maintaining a wallet should not be part of maintaining the core infrastructure. But just deleting it would be unreasonable. > However I may be quite biased, as I am the maintainer of what is primarily a wallet library :) Hah. I've thought about that migration path as well. From my experience the main thing people are missing with BitcoinJ is a quick and easy way to set up a wallet as a daemon, to use the functionality from non-java through RPC. But there are other interesting upcoming wallet projects as well, for example CoinVault. Wladimir