{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2p","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2p","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:12 PM, slush \u003cslush at centrum.cz\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Maybe there're other ideas how to improve current situation without needs\n\u003e of reworking the architecture.\n\u003e\n\nNothing I've proposed here would require larger changes to the architecture\nthen were already planned. After SPV lands we are going to split off the\nwallet, and that will need an interface to an bitcoind to allow 'running\nwith full node'. If that can be generalized to be useful for other (SPV)\nclients as well, that would be useful, hence I asked for input.\n\nIt of course doesn't preclude also looking for other solutions.\n\nWladimir\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140409/eb8737dd/attachment.html\u003e"}