📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09 📝 Original message:On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at ...

Wladimir [ARCHIVE] /

npub1xqs…mc2p

2023-06-07 15:18:11

in reply to nevent1q…e57h

📅 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>;

Author Public Key

npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2p

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 15:18:11

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "3d9cbbd7050363b02ab262037beadd1d30b0be0fd2de614b46dd5c55c127cdcd", "pubkey": "30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722", "created_at": 1686151091, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "ed99a8ad47eb2c18db74cd3bd79e8fcc6fa95e61654848c6ab9c5bb9f7a7e8bf", "", "root" ], [ "e", "24f1cbdcfd7da569377c84a2487edb0db262a25d9929f506b231448a1ccb4b7a", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "7a4ba40070e54012212867182c66beef592603fe7c7284b72ffaafce9da20c05" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Thomas Voegtlin \u003cthomasv1 at gmx.de\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Le 09/04/2014 17:54, Gregory Maxwell a écrit :\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Sadly today Electrum requires more than a full node, it requires a\n\u003e \u003e number of large additional indexes over what a full node has and\n\u003e \u003e pruning is precluded. I don't think that increasing the resource\n\u003e \u003e utilization of the node is a good way to go there for the purposes\n\u003e \u003e expressed here. (not that electrum couldn't be used here, but not\n\u003e \u003e unmodified without the resource usage increasing route)\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Electrum uses two large indexes:\n\u003e\n\u003e address -\u003e utxo\n\u003e\n\u003e (patricia tree, aka \"ultimate blockchain compression\", see thread\n\u003e started by Alan Reiner in the bitcointalk forum)\n\u003e\n\nThanks for the explanation.\n\nAdding a RPC call for a \"address -\u003e utxo\" query wouldn't be a big deal. It\nhas been requested before for other purposes as well, all the better if it\nhelps for interaction with Electrum.\n\nSpent history would be involve a much larger index, and it's not likely\nthat will end up in bitcoin\n\nWladimir\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140409/4cf070b4/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "52f54eed095072a7c1b403031bff3894638c29324689352e4ab421751b8366b54e91ccff9e1e612139ddbffb1f9a41cce5f10fd1af68f985c5dfe8d4bc137009" }