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
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1WzPdv-0006UM-MB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:16:07 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WzPdt-0006Eo-Ud
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:16:07 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id uz6so202969obc.38
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.143.37 with SMTP id sb5mr643076oeb.38.1403612160516; Tue,
24 Jun 2014 05:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJADNS6zy--sk3W3q21inuSB5jkkRku14vxLXDXKf=vkvw@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>
<CAC1+kJMn3p5H6A8GGiuF56d411zC4qsTomuy7A5e0+OQT78FGQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJADNS6zy--sk3W3q21inuSB5jkkRku14vxLXDXKf=vkvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:16:00 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: yypx88EHRNeruHq6jfiJJ4lGNHQ
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0sT3KTPatwNFO5gjwShkGQt=h6PjX-3Df2U9oXa=3JUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a81a03aea1904fc93ecbb
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1WzPdt-0006Eo-Ud
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 12:16:07 -0000
--047d7b3a81a03aea1904fc93ecbb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Although Pieter and I disagree with regard to issue #4351, we agree on
> wanting to keep (or at least making) bitcoind as lean as possible.
> Maintaining extra indices for others doesn't fit in there - that's
> also why the address index patch was not merged. An 'index node' could
> be a different animal.
We definitely want to head in the direction of allowing a p2p node to be as
useful as possible within its resource constraints and optional advertising
of new (expensive) indexes is the way to go.
Sometimes I wonder if we should have an RPC or new socket based method
where additional programs could run along side Bitcoin Core and opt to
handle a subset of p2p commands. But then I think, that seems like a lot of
complexity for people who just want to help out the system, which I guess
is the bulk of our network now. Keeping their lives simple should have a
high priority. So a single unified program that just figures it out
automatically rather than expecting users to assemble a bag of parts seems
a goal worth striving for.
--047d7b3a81a03aea1904fc93ecbb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"">Although Pieter and I disagree w=
ith regard to issue #4351, we agree on<br>
</div>
wanting to keep (or at least making) bitcoind as lean as possible.<br>
Maintaining extra indices for others doesn't fit in there - that's<=
br>
also why the address index patch was not merged. An 'index node' co=
uld<br>
be a different animal.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>We definitely want t=
o head in the direction of allowing a p2p node to be as useful as possible =
within its resource constraints and optional advertising of new (expensive)=
indexes is the way to go.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sometimes I wonder if we should have an RPC or new sock=
et based method where additional programs could run along side Bitcoin Core=
and opt to handle a subset of p2p commands. But then I think, that seems l=
ike a lot of complexity for people who just want to help out the system, wh=
ich I guess is the bulk of our network now. Keeping their lives simple shou=
ld have a high priority. So a single unified program that just figures it o=
ut automatically rather than expecting users to assemble a bag of parts see=
ms a goal worth striving for.=C2=A0</div>
</div></div></div>
--047d7b3a81a03aea1904fc93ecbb--
|
