public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core trial balloon: splitting blockchain engine and wallet
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:27:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2siw9hGPVsPjQ6WyohacOrs8rqs5p9ZsFY5kF0URnPWg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0OD7w0Rs5ygAE4C14EWm1=x57YHG2kOee1pzxvj3FQ38g@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3209 bytes --]

Bear in mind a separate process doesn't buy you anything without a sandbox,
and those are expensive (in terms of complexity).
On 21 Feb 2014 11:40, "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@bitpay•com> wrote:

> [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/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
> Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
> Read the Whitepaper.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4338 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2014-02-21  6:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-21  6:09 Jeff Garzik
2014-02-21  6:27 ` Mike Hearn [this message]
     [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=CANEZrP2siw9hGPVsPjQ6WyohacOrs8rqs5p9ZsFY5kF0URnPWg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
    --cc=jgarzik@bitpay$(echo .)com \
    /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