rich1.0npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6https://nostr.ae/npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09 📝 Original message:We definitely *need* lightweight bitcoin router / "core" which can be easily deployed anywhere. No disagreement here. I just wanted to remind that there're actually much more running nodes *already* and maybe converting those hidden nodes to publicly reachable nodes may be way easier than attracting fresh instances. To the idea of bundled core with SPV clients - it won't improve anything, in my opinion. SPV wallets are not running long-term (maybe Multibit team has any better stats) so blockchain catching will turn the computer to be unusable everytime user starts the wallet; that's exactly the reason why people choose SPV wallets over full blockchain wallets. Not saying that SPV clients usually aren't reachable from outside, which turns the topic back to my ideas about motivating users to expose their existing instances over Internet. Marek On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:12 PM, slush <slush at centrum.cz> wrote: > >> Maybe there're other ideas how to improve current situation without needs >> of reworking the architecture. >> > > Nothing I've proposed here would require larger changes to the > architecture then were already planned. After SPV lands we are going to > split off the wallet, and that will need an interface to an bitcoind to > allow 'running with full node'. If that can be generalized to be useful for > other (SPV) clients as well, that would be useful, hence I asked for input. > > It of course doesn't preclude also looking for other solutions. > > Wladimir > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140409/a49a8414/attachment.html>