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
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <agrimes@speakeasy.net>) id 1QmJ6y-0001Bz-Io
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 28 Jul 2011 05:26:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of speakeasy.net
designates 69.17.117.50 as permitted sender)
client-ip=69.17.117.50; envelope-from=agrimes@speakeasy.net;
helo=mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net;
Received: from mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.50])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QmJ6v-0001hk-0P
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 28 Jul 2011 05:26:20 +0000
Received: (qmail 28542 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2011 05:26:10 -0000
Received: from dsl092-168-049.wdc2.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO [10.0.0.4])
([66.92.168.49]) (envelope-sender <agrimes@speakeasy.net>)
by mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted
SMTP for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
28 Jul 2011 05:26:10 -0000
Message-ID: <4E30F2DA.6030403@speakeasy.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:25:46 -0400
From: Alan Grimes <agrimes@speakeasy.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:5.0) Gecko/20110711 Firefox/5.0 SeaMonkey/2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-1.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain 0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QmJ6v-0001hk-0P
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin components.
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: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 05:26:20 -0000
Lets look at:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Infrastructure
This is OK as a super high-level overview, but it leaves a great deal to
be explained.
First what is the status of this? Is it fully implemented? A working
proposal? An approved proposal? etc...
I am working on the peer and the wallet boxes in this diagram. I want to
implement my own version because the existing code is completely
untrustworthy, it is totally slap-dash and almost completely uncommented.
My questions related to the peer are these:
It is taken for granted that the peer will have a listening component
that accepts connections from other peers.
Does it also have an active component? If so, what operations does it
perform autonomously?
/me looks at wallet.h and GAH!! Someone reversed the concept of debit
and credit! =( (GetDebit(), GetCredit())
Interesting... What is the exact relationship between the wallet and the
miner? (The miner is irrelevant to me until I have a wallet I can trust
enough to experiment with...)
After reading the dox on libdb, I'm leaning towards an inetd
implementation. That is, inetd handles all the dirty work with regards
to connections, and spawns off a server for each client. This minimizes
the quantity of code at the cost of a wee bit of overhead (maybe 10k per
process). Basically, the penguin acts like the KoAC in Katamari Damacy,
if you don't do it in the regal old-fashioned way, he rains down
thunderbolts on you and you get to write 3 or 4 times as much code.
The upside is that each peer is served by a single completely isolated
process with extremely simple and highly auditable code.
A general problem that I haven't seen any documentation on yet is that
most of today's operating systems are properly multi-user systems.
Naturally, each user would keep his wallet in an encrypted store in his
home directory. Are there any standards yet for users to set up their
personal wallet daemon that connects to a system-wide peer node and
provides an interface for only their own GUI?
--
E T F
N H E
D E D
Powers are not rights.
|
