Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-02-21 📝 Original message:[Meta: "Bitcoin Core" is ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-02-21
📝 Original message:[Meta: "Bitcoin Core" is the newfangled branding of bitcoind /
Bitcoin-Qt reference implementation, in case you wondering.]
Several sites, including BitPay, use bitcoind outside the standard
role of wallet software. bitcoind can be used purely for payment
network access and management. I call this the "border router" role.
Upcoming version 0.9 will feature the ability to disable the bitcoind
wallet at compile time or runtime. This permits a more optimized
border router profile, reducing process size by 40-200MB according to
some reports.
Recent IRC discussion have floated a rough proposal for a wallet
next-step: Running the Bitcoin Core wallet as a separate process, a
separate binary, from the blockchain engine. The wallet process would
communicate with the blockchain engine using existing RPC and P2P
channels, becoming a real SPV client. This accomplishes a
longstanding security goal of sandboxing away wallet keys and
sensitive data from the network-exposed P2P engine, in a separate
process, among other benefits.
Simple forking was explored a bit. I did some hacking in that
direction, as it seemed potentially lightweight and somewhat easy to
me: https://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin/tree/fork fork+pipe is fine
for Linux and OSX/BSD. However, Windows requires an exec-like
solution to create a new process. MSDN does give us a Unix-pipe-like
solution: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/edze9h7e%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
Others pointed to boost interprocess communication APIs, which come
with their own set of caveats. Such a solution would involve a brand
new IPC protocol, and lots of brand new glue code.
Separate programs seems better. Windows forces us to achieve process
separation via exec-like method. We already have IPC: RPC + P2P.
Modern OS's make localhost sockets just about as fast as other IPCs
methods. Linux, at least, employs zero-copy for localhost sockets in
many situations, similar to the kernel's pipe tricks.
Pieter has been working on headers-first sync:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2964 Moving along this
wallet/blockchain engine split requires upping the review&test
bandwidth on Pieter's PRs, such as
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3514
Unsure how much of the separate-binary discussion Gavin saw, so cc'd
for emphasis.
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
📝 Original message:[Meta: "Bitcoin Core" is the newfangled branding of bitcoind /
Bitcoin-Qt reference implementation, in case you wondering.]
Several sites, including BitPay, use bitcoind outside the standard
role of wallet software. bitcoind can be used purely for payment
network access and management. I call this the "border router" role.
Upcoming version 0.9 will feature the ability to disable the bitcoind
wallet at compile time or runtime. This permits a more optimized
border router profile, reducing process size by 40-200MB according to
some reports.
Recent IRC discussion have floated a rough proposal for a wallet
next-step: Running the Bitcoin Core wallet as a separate process, a
separate binary, from the blockchain engine. The wallet process would
communicate with the blockchain engine using existing RPC and P2P
channels, becoming a real SPV client. This accomplishes a
longstanding security goal of sandboxing away wallet keys and
sensitive data from the network-exposed P2P engine, in a separate
process, among other benefits.
Simple forking was explored a bit. I did some hacking in that
direction, as it seemed potentially lightweight and somewhat easy to
me: https://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin/tree/fork fork+pipe is fine
for Linux and OSX/BSD. However, Windows requires an exec-like
solution to create a new process. MSDN does give us a Unix-pipe-like
solution: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/edze9h7e%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
Others pointed to boost interprocess communication APIs, which come
with their own set of caveats. Such a solution would involve a brand
new IPC protocol, and lots of brand new glue code.
Separate programs seems better. Windows forces us to achieve process
separation via exec-like method. We already have IPC: RPC + P2P.
Modern OS's make localhost sockets just about as fast as other IPCs
methods. Linux, at least, employs zero-copy for localhost sockets in
many situations, similar to the kernel's pipe tricks.
Pieter has been working on headers-first sync:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2964 Moving along this
wallet/blockchain engine split requires upping the review&test
bandwidth on Pieter's PRs, such as
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3514
Unsure how much of the separate-binary discussion Gavin saw, so cc'd
for emphasis.
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/