📅 Original date posted:2014-06-23
📝 Original message:On 6/23/14, Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
So first bitcoind will support SPV mode then we separate the wallet?
Are the core and the wallet share any code (say, the p2p messages via
a sub-repo or something)?
> 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.
I thought we would first separate wallet from core (maintaining the
full-node wallet status) and then implement an optional SPV mode for
the core (and transitively for "qt-wallet", which would support both
full and SPV mode).
> There are no plans for adding Electrum-like functionality to bitcoind.
> There is already Electrum. Let's not reinvent any wheels.
I'm sorry, but I still don't know what Electrum has to do with all this.
Bitcoin companies often like to interface with the network via
bitcoind nodes, what's wrong with their custom wallets consuming some
optional indexes from a bitcoind node their run themselves?
I'm not proposing a "bitcoind-client" similar to a electrum-client. I
thought it was assumed you where still going to run both the core and
the wallet and we just wanted to separate the code for better
modularity. Seriously, Mike also said something about Electrum too and
I'm really lost about what you people mean here.
> 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.
Why cannot consume that data from a bitcoind node that always run alongside it?
I still don't get the plan but it feels like it won't look as DRY as I
was expecting...
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 15:23:11
in reply to nevent1q…f87t
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 15:23:11Event JSON
{
"id": "8ad7d301289a8ddc962874d33abed71e82a1ce5ff755424a53776f038caef914",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686151391,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"70c0fbbfb361e1a5e33121959a54368ef9bf960fb4424bf0b260b1c5f505777b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"842977e918475506198d236bf992d775f225dd41cd0dc571025331ec41a5f230",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-06-23\n📝 Original message:On 6/23/14, Wladimir \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e It's least surprising if the wallet works as a SPV client by default.\n\u003e Then, users can use it without first setting up a core. Thus the idea\n\u003e would be to use P2P primarily.\n\nSo first bitcoind will support SPV mode then we separate the wallet?\nAre the core and the wallet share any code (say, the p2p messages via\na sub-repo or something)?\n\n\u003e There could be a mode to use a trusted core by RPC for\n\u003e mempool/conflicted transaction validation and such. But I'm not sure\n\u003e about this - as we've seen, pure-SPV wallets work pretty well. If you\n\u003e want it to act as an edge router you can point a SPV wallet at your\n\u003e trusted core as well.\n\nI thought we would first separate wallet from core (maintaining the\nfull-node wallet status) and then implement an optional SPV mode for\nthe core (and transitively for \"qt-wallet\", which would support both\nfull and SPV mode).\n\n\u003e There are no plans for adding Electrum-like functionality to bitcoind.\n\u003e There is already Electrum. Let's not reinvent any wheels.\n\nI'm sorry, but I still don't know what Electrum has to do with all this.\nBitcoin companies often like to interface with the network via\nbitcoind nodes, what's wrong with their custom wallets consuming some\noptional indexes from a bitcoind node their run themselves?\nI'm not proposing a \"bitcoind-client\" similar to a electrum-client. I\nthought it was assumed you where still going to run both the core and\nthe wallet and we just wanted to separate the code for better\nmodularity. Seriously, Mike also said something about Electrum too and\nI'm really lost about what you people mean here.\n\n\u003e It does not need to keep a full chain database. But it needs its own\n\u003e record of the chain, headers-only + what concerns the keys in the\n\u003e wallet.\n\nWhy cannot consume that data from a bitcoind node that always run alongside it?\n\nI still don't get the plan but it feels like it won't look as DRY as I\nwas expecting...",
"sig": "44b49c81695c502c6914a22f846312a537aacdfb6b0b36fab3fc48e44b8ece733c0ca844f8bf8229416ae02cab919b249f2ea320b46cbe48cf9da87ec8ce2bab"
}