From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1V1ZKE-00031l-5b for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:56:10 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.177; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1V1ZKC-000618-Fy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:56:10 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ta17so9605116obb.36 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:56:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.56.20 with SMTP id w20mr21170013igp.40.1374573363084; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.20.225 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:56:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201307231052.14210.andyparkins@gmail.com> References: <CAJHLa0Ou1xF=LeLVu_wH1-XgJ1PavDV7_NHoDevo3R9+4z-ZfQ@mail.gmail.com> <201307231030.14139.andyparkins@gmail.com> <20130723094204.GB6385@vps7135.xlshosting.net> <201307231052.14210.andyparkins@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:56:02 +0200 Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgwnCOeehv8V7dhNUmfB9jiSc9zSL1CeBOnHELyNwSFHA@mail.gmail.com> From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> To: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 (pieter.wuille[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: 1V1ZKC-000618-Fy Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] HTTP REST API for bitcoind 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, 23 Jul 2013 09:56:10 -0000 On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> wrote: >> There is actually no such index being maintained by default, and doing so >> is an unnecessary burden IMHO (you need to enable -txindex since 0.8 to >> get this). Of course, if enabled, it can be exposed. > > Wow. I'm surprised at that. How does a newly received transaction have its > inputs verified then? Multiple linear brute force searches of the block chain > for every new transaction? Or is it that transactions are only recorded if > they were in a block, and just their presence indicates they're valid? The block chain is not involved at all to verify transactions, it's just a historical record to serve to other nodes, and to do wallet rescans with. For validation, a separate database with just unspent transaction outputs is used (around 230 MB now). -- Pieter