From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WzPNV-0007uR-It for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:59:09 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.180; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WzPNQ-0005BX-Iv for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:59:09 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id rl12so132614iec.39 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:58:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.134.135 with SMTP id pk7mr34404982igb.31.1403611138710; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:58:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:58:58 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 1WzPNQ-0005BX-Iv 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 11:59:09 -0000 On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrot= e: > On 6/24/14, Mike Hearn wrote: ou did want to separate the wallet code from the full node then that'd be >> the way to do it. > > Exactly, this is part of my point, the qt-wallet does not support SPV > operation at this point, and that complex work should be done after > the wallet is separated. Thus the first version of the separated > wallet should be functionally equivalent to today's wallet, that is, a > full node wallet (even though I understand Wladimir's arguments > against full-node wallets). Do mind that some of the steps on the path of bitcoind towards SPV are also useful in general. For example, headers-first allows parallel block download, which would solve a lot of sync issues people are having - a much higher priority than the wallet. But anyhow I'm describing how I would do it. If you're going to do it, you can do it in any order that you want. As we're talking about a separate project here it's not even clear who will be maintainer. > 2) That doesn't necessarily mean that optionally maintaining > additional indexes in the core is not interesting for some use cases > (interesting for bitcoind, I don't care much if electrum-server > currently does this and more [with more dependencies]). Although > Pieter thinks that should also be separated into an "index node" too, > but I think that's another discussion. I don't understand your argument against Electrum here. Dependencies? Come on, that's a matter of software distribution. If that really bothers you I suppose you could contribute to Electrum server so that it has less deps. It doesn't make the protocol worth any less. 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. Wladimir