Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WzfzX-0002BR-Bq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:43:31 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.175; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WzfzV-0002Fo-Fa for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:43:31 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f175.google.com with SMTP id h3so5622442igd.14 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:43:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.134.135 with SMTP id pk7mr39990556igb.31.1403675003601; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:43:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <53A99A55.1020506@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:43:23 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (laanwj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WzfzV-0002Fo-Fa Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Plans to separate wallet from core X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:43:31 -0000 On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrot= e: > > I think he means that the wallet shouldn't be running as much as it is > currently doing. > But yes, I think you're right about wallets and GUIs not necessarily > mapping 1:1. I haven't been talking about the GUI at all in this entire conversation. When I say wallet, I mean the wallet code. There are very few reasons for running a wallet 24/7. One could be if you're running an exchange that has to send and receive transactions all the time. But that's an exception - in the usual merchant/end-user case you're mostly receiving transactions and sometimes manually or batched- sending them. No need to leave the wallet running, exposed to the network outside those times. How the wallet GUI (if any) relates to the wallet code is a completely different topic, and a much less pressing matter. Anything from 'GUI uses wallet as a library' (multibit, electrum, bitcoin core) to elaborate client-server protocols (btcd, coinvault?) are acceptable depending on the use case. Wladimir