Re: [bitcoin-dev] [patch] Switching Bitcoin Core to sqlite db

On Nov 17, 2015 5:54 AM, "Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Isolating storage from the rest of consensus code is technically desirable, but implementations using different storage will be unlikely bug-for-bug compatible, > hence able to split the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic Hierarchical Deterministic Key Trees

Hi Eric, Would you please enumerate, or point to, arguments that discourage the use of a key both for signing and for derivation of a deeper level of the hierarchy ? Tamas Blummer > On Nov 17, 2015, at 12:40, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [patch] Switching Bitcoin Core to sqlite db

Isolating storage from the rest of consensus code is technically desirable, but implementations using different storage will be unlikely bug-for-bug compatible, hence able to split the network. Such split was disastrous on the network level if partitions were of comparable magnitude - as was

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [patch] Switching Bitcoin Core to sqlite db

Benchmarks for various DBs under discussion: http://symas.com/mdb/microbench/ On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 2015/10/23 03:30, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > On Thursday 22 Oct 2015 17:26:42 Jeff Garzik

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [patch] Switching Bitcoin Core to sqlite db

Shouldn't a odbc jdbc jconnect or equivalent be totally transparent for the consensus code? I mean, the client would write or store the data communicating to the driver provided by the vendor. Using the schema bitcoin suggests adapted to many different vendors (one table schema for Oracle,