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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wz1Yc-0005ow-3O for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:33:02 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.178; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wz1YW-0001Iv-6u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:33:02 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id rd18so5457303iec.23 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:32:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.134.135 with SMTP id pk7mr26049384igb.31.1403519570263; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:32:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:32:50 +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: 1Wz1YW-0001Iv-6u 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: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:33:02 -0000 On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wro= te: > I know there are plans to separate the wallet from the core code and I > think it's a great idea that will result in cleaner and more modular > software. > But it seems like my assumptions on how this would be done may be incorre= ct. > > I was assuming that the wallet would consume data from a trusted > bitcoind core node using rpc or a better interface like an http rest > api (see PR #2844). It's least surprising if the wallet works as a SPV client by default. Then, users can use it without first setting up a core. Thus the idea would be to use P2P primarily. There could be a mode to use a trusted core by RPC for mempool/conflicted transaction validation and such. But I'm not sure about this - as we've seen, pure-SPV wallets work pretty well. If you want it to act as an edge router you can point a SPV wallet at your trusted core as well. There are no plans for adding Electrum-like functionality to bitcoind. There is already Electrum. Let's not reinvent any wheels. > So the core would take care of the hard consensus stuff, and the > wallet would maintain its own database with private keys, addresses, > balances, etc. and would consume some data contained in bitcoind's > database. Right, the wallet would keep track of those. > I also assumed that the interface between wallet and core would > include queries to the UTXO (see PR #4351) and maybe TXO (see PR > #3652) for getting the historic balances. > > As said, I'm not sure these assumptions are true anymore so I ask. > Is this the plan? > Is the plan that the wallet will use the p2p directly and maintain its > own chain database? It does not need to keep a full chain database. But it needs its own record of the chain, headers-only + what concerns the keys in the wallet. Wladimir