rich1.0npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2phttps://nostr.ae/npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2pnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09 📝 Original message:On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv1 at gmx.de> wrote: > Le 09/04/2014 17:54, Gregory Maxwell a écrit : > > > Sadly today Electrum requires more than a full node, it requires a > > number of large additional indexes over what a full node has and > > pruning is precluded. I don't think that increasing the resource > > utilization of the node is a good way to go there for the purposes > > expressed here. (not that electrum couldn't be used here, but not > > unmodified without the resource usage increasing route) > > > > Electrum uses two large indexes: > > address -> utxo > > (patricia tree, aka "ultimate blockchain compression", see thread > started by Alan Reiner in the bitcointalk forum) > Thanks for the explanation. Adding a RPC call for a "address -> 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. Spent history would be involve a much larger index, and it's not likely that will end up in bitcoin Wladimir -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140409/4cf070b4/attachment.html>