{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-10\n📝 Original message:Hi Wladimir,\n\nIf the motivation of the SPV wallet is to radically extend functionality, as in my case, then the index is specific to the added features and the subset of the blockchain that is of interest for the wallet.\nAs you also point out, adding huge generic purpose indices to core would rather discourage people using full nodes due to excess requirements. \n\nI believe nothing would add more to the core’s popularity as a trusted background node to SPV than full validation at lowest possible memory, disk and CPU footprint.\nServing headers should be default but storing and serving full blocks configurable to ranges, so people can tailor to their bandwith and space available.\n\nTamas Blummer\nBits of Proof\n\nOn 09.04.2014, at 21:25, Wladimir \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Adding a RPC call for a \"address -\u003e utxo\" query wouldn't be a big deal. It has been requested before for other purposes as well, all the better if it helps for interaction with Electrum.\n\u003e \n\u003e Spent history would be involve a much larger index, and it's not likely that will end up in bitcoin\n\u003e \n\u003e Wladimir\n\u003e \n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140410/45889b81/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 495 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140410/45889b81/attachment.sig\u003e"}