📅 Original date posted:2013-07-23
📝 Original message:On 07/23/2013 11:47 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
>> Is it planned to expose the UXTO set of a given address? That would be
>> useful for SPV wallets to be able to swipe a previously unknown private
>> key (e.g. paper wallet).
>
> The REST API has nothing to do with SPV clients; it's similar to the RPC
> interface and won't be exposed to the network as a whole.
>
> Increasing the resource usage by SPV clients on full nodes is undesirable; we
> have a lot of work to do regarding DoS attacks.
Yes, I understand that. For this reason, I would vote for adding the
usual HTTP authentication/SSL stuff to the REST API. That way, SPV users
can decide to run their own instance of the API (providing the needed
resources themselves).
Or, a trusted party can set up a server. For example, I would be willing
to set it up for users of Bitcoin Wallet. I don't expect shitloads of
paper wallets sweeps for the forseeable future.
Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xg…adsv7
2023-06-07 15:05:01
in reply to nevent1q…u57y
Author Public Key
npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7Published at
2023-06-07 15:05:01Event JSON
{
"id": "f040b089875927a87e47729baaed5a6b8604ea59ba5a6ed70ba21c17b273724a",
"pubkey": "3215b3d77dff1f84eeb5ad46fb1206a8d1657b3ea765a80b5489ece3a702d2bc",
"created_at": 1686150301,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2548e3bbd5806f0a91f1440e5be19b1893f723d052860cba20b98f557d042316",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c8d70e48fe6799507f2f18716db6c11dfa95f6b05d601f9ccd177c5e65a62bcc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-07-23\n📝 Original message:On 07/23/2013 11:47 AM, Peter Todd wrote:\n\n\u003e\u003e Is it planned to expose the UXTO set of a given address? That would be\n\u003e\u003e useful for SPV wallets to be able to swipe a previously unknown private\n\u003e\u003e key (e.g. paper wallet).\n\u003e \n\u003e The REST API has nothing to do with SPV clients; it's similar to the RPC\n\u003e interface and won't be exposed to the network as a whole.\n\u003e \n\u003e Increasing the resource usage by SPV clients on full nodes is undesirable; we\n\u003e have a lot of work to do regarding DoS attacks.\n\nYes, I understand that. For this reason, I would vote for adding the\nusual HTTP authentication/SSL stuff to the REST API. That way, SPV users\ncan decide to run their own instance of the API (providing the needed\nresources themselves).\n\nOr, a trusted party can set up a server. For example, I would be willing\nto set it up for users of Bitcoin Wallet. I don't expect shitloads of\npaper wallets sweeps for the forseeable future.",
"sig": "5b92328e759c4712933fed72d0dbba5ce98abd78c4aabb94f9274efaa11f53d4ca4ac16e421271552d183305e466f36deaa26b23dde6c9be82b40b7bec48fe00"
}