From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay•com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core trial balloon: splitting blockchain engine and wallet
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:09:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0OD7w0Rs5ygAE4C14EWm1=x57YHG2kOee1pzxvj3FQ38g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
[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/
next reply other threads:[~2014-02-21 6:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-21 6:09 Jeff Garzik [this message]
2014-02-21 6:27 ` Mike Hearn
[not found] ` <CA+s+GJCRqqmoHkmsq+6x9Wm6btKzdXoPjw5Af8zRDEkDE+6+zw@mail.gmail.com>
2014-02-21 6:43 ` [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: " Wladimir
2014-02-21 6:50 ` William Yager
2014-02-21 6:54 ` Wladimir
2014-02-22 1:09 ` Dustin D. Trammell
2014-02-22 6:53 ` Wladimir
2014-02-24 22:16 ` James Hartig
2014-02-21 6:50 ` [Bitcoin-development] " Jeff Garzik
2014-02-21 10:41 ` Mike Hearn
2014-02-21 11:06 ` Peter Todd
2014-02-22 1:04 ` Dustin D. Trammell
2014-02-22 2:08 ` Jeff Garzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAJHLa0OD7w0Rs5ygAE4C14EWm1=x57YHG2kOee1pzxvj3FQ38g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jgarzik@bitpay$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox