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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WXut7-0008E0-Dx
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:58:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f52.google.com; 
Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WXut2-0003Ar-Uy
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:58:09 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ec20so1290344lab.39
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 09 Apr 2014 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.131.65 with SMTP id ok1mr1621502lbb.51.1397059078171;
	Wed, 09 Apr 2014 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAADm4BCEFCiOpNzUThPPHUamP2256izU8pwD3nerLCxks0wENA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+s+GJCn9U2kmyMH6w3o+m99NCfO0ws=SccvGBYJv07WVuF=eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAADm4BCEFCiOpNzUThPPHUamP2256izU8pwD3nerLCxks0wENA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:57:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTx40XSLhiygnJMrSbOC=iJ2YMVLNK7-AMt3ifvAHDZUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Brian Hoffman <brianchoffman@gmail.com>
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
	(gmaxwell[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: 1WXut2-0003Ar-Uy
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoind-in-background mode for SPV
	wallets
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: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:58:09 -0000

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Brian Hoffman <brianchoffman@gmail.com> wro=
te:
> How would this affect the user in terms of disk storage? They're going to
> get hammered on space constraints aren't they? If it's not required how
> likely are users to enable this?

If Bitcoin core activates pruning a full node can be supported in=E2=80=94
say=E2=80=94 4GBytes or so. (That gives enough space to store the utxo abou=
t
350MB now, and a couple gigs for blocks to serve out).

I'd imagine getting information from SPV wallet developers how much
disk usage agility they think is required is part of what Wladimir is
looking for.