📅 Original date posted:2014-06-24
📝 Original message:>
> Although Pieter and I disagree with regard to issue #4351, we agree on
> wanting to keep (or at least making) bitcoind as lean as possible.
> Maintaining extra indices for others doesn't fit in there - that's
> also why the address index patch was not merged. An 'index node' could
> be a different animal.
We definitely want to head in the direction of allowing a p2p node to be as
useful as possible within its resource constraints and optional advertising
of new (expensive) indexes is the way to go.
Sometimes I wonder if we should have an RPC or new socket based method
where additional programs could run along side Bitcoin Core and opt to
handle a subset of p2p commands. But then I think, that seems like a lot of
complexity for people who just want to help out the system, which I guess
is the bulk of our network now. Keeping their lives simple should have a
high priority. So a single unified program that just figures it out
automatically rather than expecting users to assemble a bag of parts seems
a goal worth striving for.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140624/76627853/attachment.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 15:23:15
in reply to nevent1q…za8j
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 15:23:15Event JSON
{
"id": "6b984f7abd4240d6fde2701b326ddfd946937e49e85e46b13afb12c76f1450ee",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686151395,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"70c0fbbfb361e1a5e33121959a54368ef9bf960fb4424bf0b260b1c5f505777b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0675733a5ef428c6a05a43ba54cacdec515c7daaac9ef2c8fda16ed4a7e2252b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-06-24\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e Although Pieter and I disagree with regard to issue #4351, we agree on\n\u003e wanting to keep (or at least making) bitcoind as lean as possible.\n\u003e Maintaining extra indices for others doesn't fit in there - that's\n\u003e also why the address index patch was not merged. An 'index node' could\n\u003e be a different animal.\n\n\nWe definitely want to head in the direction of allowing a p2p node to be as\nuseful as possible within its resource constraints and optional advertising\nof new (expensive) indexes is the way to go.\n\nSometimes I wonder if we should have an RPC or new socket based method\nwhere additional programs could run along side Bitcoin Core and opt to\nhandle a subset of p2p commands. But then I think, that seems like a lot of\ncomplexity for people who just want to help out the system, which I guess\nis the bulk of our network now. Keeping their lives simple should have a\nhigh priority. So a single unified program that just figures it out\nautomatically rather than expecting users to assemble a bag of parts seems\na goal worth striving for.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140624/76627853/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "30ed6c62c60b28fa611f67f035408b5bb69befbf997a2c04106b253fb168ba450260f374bb2ca6e1842c85d9428c5cb0633ccd4fff2c85f43ab4f3585dc38295"
}