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 ) id 1WzNGr-00035H-Ld for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:44:09 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.169; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WzNGp-0002Iv-Ra for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:44:09 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id at1so26688iec.14 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:44:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.147.5 with SMTP id l5mr915692icv.89.1403603041780; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:44:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:44:01 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= 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: 1WzNGp-0002Iv-Ra 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 09:44:09 -0000 > 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. But for basic wallet functionality it isn't necessary. Wladimir