Wallet Node without need to download all blockchain...

[cfbtcman]

Hi,

Is not possible to lunch a bitcoin core node wallet version that simply let the user choose when installing if he wants to validate transactions or just use as wallet?

In the case of user choose using it only as wallet it would not download all the core and will not validade transactions, but would be a official wallet downloaded from a trusted source and we wouldnt need to trust 3rd parties as software/man in the middle.

One thing is bitcoin.org recommends for example Electrum as wallet, other thing is to use one official bitcoin.org community software wallet that makes part of the bitcoin core.

I read that we can use prune mode, but prune mode needs for about 10GB, so, that is not solution and prune mode keeps validating transactions, but many people (my case) only search for a trusted wallet and some existing software wallet recommended by bitcoin.org could be easily compromissed.

[Rath_]

You can't use Bitcoin Core without verifying every single block. Pruned mode in fact lets you save a lot of space but you still have to download old blocks and verify them before deleting. Consider using Electrum. It is a light client which gives you a full control over your private keys and doesn't force you to download any additional data. Most importantly, it supports SegWit so you can take advantage of lower fees. I have written two tutorials on how to use Electrum for beginners and advanced users.

Electrum has many advanced features, for example, coin control and supports the vast majority of hardware wallets.

[cr1776]

Hi,

Is not possible to lunch a bitcoin core node wallet version that simply let the user choose when installing if he wants to validate transactions or just use as wallet?

In the case of user choose using it only as wallet it would not download all the core and will not validade transactions, but would be a official wallet downloaded from a trusted source and we wouldnt need to trust 3rd parties as software/man in the middle.

One thing is bitcoin.org recommends for example Electron as wallet, other thing is to use one official bitcoin.org community software wallet that makes part of the bitcoin core.

I read that we can use prune mode, but prune mode needs for about 10GB, so, that is not solution and prune mode keeps validating transactions, but many people (my case) only search for a trusted wallet and some existing software wallet recommended by bitcoin.org could be easily compromissed.

Just to be clear, I think bitcoin.COM recommends the "Electron Cash" wallet.  I think bitcoin.ORG recommends Electrum.  IIRC, Electron is for Bitcoin Cash, Electrum is for Bitcoin.  

I think one issue is more along the lines of that no one has wanted to do the development for this since Electrum and others do it well and it gets away from the core premise that you should run a full node.  You could do a pull request for Bitcoin Core to add this functionality or you could fork Bitcoin Core and to do the development too as an alternative client and see what happens.

Anyway, you have to trust third parties whatever you do, either with Bitcoin Core, the core devs, or Electrum, the electrum devs.   Both groups have been involved for a long time, so as long as you verify signatures, it doesn't buy you much to have it all in Core, imho.

[HeRetiK]

Just to be clear, I think bitcoin.COM recommends the "Electron Cash" wallet.  I think bitcoin.ORG recommends Electrum.  IIRC, Electron is for Bitcoin Cash, Electrum is for Bitcoin.  

That is correct. Electrum is the Bitcoin wallet, Electron is the Bitcoin Cash fork. Be sure to get the correct one.

I read that we can use prune mode, but prune mode needs for about 10GB, so, that is not solution and prune mode keeps validating transactions, but many people (my case) only search for a trusted wallet and some existing software wallet recommended by bitcoin.org could be easily compromissed.

Unless something changed since SegWit the minimum requirement for a pruned node is 550MB (ie. prune=550), not 10GB. You still won't get around downloading and verifying the whole blockchain first though. As far as SPV wallets are concerned Electrum is the most trusted however.

[cfbtcman]

Anyway, you have to trust third parties whatever you do, either with Bitcoin Core, the core devs, or Electrum, the electrum devs.   Both groups have been involved for a long time, so as long as you verify signatures, it doesn't buy you much to have it all in Core, imho.

The essence of bitcoin is not to trust in 3rd parties, i think the best way of doing a trustfull wallet is using the bitcoin core code and not Electrum code, so i think the bitcoin core project should be constructed over this idea, you should be able to install the core only as wallet or as node, seems pretty logic for me.

[TryNinja]

Anyway, you have to trust third parties whatever you do, either with Bitcoin Core, the core devs, or Electrum, the electrum devs.   Both groups have been involved for a long time, so as long as you verify signatures, it doesn't buy you much to have it all in Core, imho.

The essence of bitcoin is not to trust in 3rd parties, i think the best way of doing a trustfull wallet is using the bitcoin core code and not Electrum code, so i think the bitcoin core project should be constructed over this idea, you should be able to install the core only as wallet or as node, seems pretty logic for me.

Seems pretty logical to you that we should centralize and limit Bitcoin into one software implementation which code commits are controlled by a small group of people?

As cr1776 said, both are 3rd parties. No one owns Bitcoin to be considered a "1st party". Both Bitcoin Core and Electrum codes are open source and trusted, so why are you hating on Electrum?

[cfbtcman]

Anyway, you have to trust third parties whatever you do, either with Bitcoin Core, the core devs, or Electrum, the electrum devs.   Both groups have been involved for a long time, so as long as you verify signatures, it doesn't buy you much to have it all in Core, imho.

The essence of bitcoin is not to trust in 3rd parties, i think the best way of doing a trustfull wallet is using the bitcoin core code and not Electrum code, so i think the bitcoin core project should be constructed over this idea, you should be able to install the core only as wallet or as node, seems pretty logic for me.

Seems pretty logical to you that we should centralize and limit Bitcoin into one software implementation which code commits are controlled by a small group of people?

As cr1776 said, both are 3rd parties. No one owns Bitcoin to be considered a "1st party". Both Bitcoin Core and Electrum codes are open source and trusted, so why are you hating on Electrum?

For me bitcoin.org its not a 3rd partie, if i take the bitcoin core, make some malware changes, compile it and put it in some online website telling its one official bitcoin core node implementation, for sure the bitcoin.org guys would tell they are the official ones and to be carefull with other implementations.

I think one official wallet lunched by the oficial bitcoin.org community its the minimum requirements and that could be integrated in core, core is a wallet yet, why cant install it only as wallet or wallet+node, why use other parties software if you have all code for wallet in core?

[TryNinja]

For me bitcoin.org its not a 3rd partie,

Bitcoin isn't owned by Bitcoin.org or its maintainers (or anyone at all). So, they are a third party. Also, Bitcoin.org isn't Core;

if i take the bitcoin core, make some malware changes, compile it and put it in some online website telling its one official bitcoin core node implementation, for sure the bitcoin.org guys would tell they are the official ones and to be carefull with other implementations.

Obviously. Who wouldn't warn people about infected/fake software? On the other side, anyone could fork Bitcoin Core, do legit changes and publish it online without any issues.

why use other parties software if you have all code for wallet in core?

Because you're allowed to. That's the beauty of the decentralized world. Everybody has their own needs and preferences.

[cfbtcman]

For me bitcoin.org its not a 3rd partie,

Bitcoin isn't owned by Bitcoin.org or its maintainers (or anyone at all). So, they are a third party. Also, Bitcoin.org isn't Core;

if i take the bitcoin core, make some malware changes, compile it and put it in some online website telling its one official bitcoin core node implementation, for sure the bitcoin.org guys would tell they are the official ones and to be carefull with other implementations.

Obviously. Who wouldn't warn people about infected/fake software? On the other side, anyone could fork Bitcoin Core, do legit changes and publish it online without any issues.

why use other parties software if you have all code for wallet in core?

Because you're allowed to. That's the beauty of the decentralized world. Everybody has their own needs and preferences.

For me bitcoin is owned by bitcoin.org, his maintainers and anyone at all that contributs for it.
We cannot have decentralization running centralized pools, centralized wallets and centralized exchangers, 3rd parties man in the middle are more dangerous than banks in normal system, we should fight that with a bitcoin core wallet without need to install all GB core, it would be less a man in the middle.

[cfbtcman]

For me bitcoin is owned by bitcoin.org, his maintainers and anyone at all that contributs for it.
We cannot have decentralization running centralized pools, centralized wallets and centralized exchangers, 3rd parties man in the middle are more dangerous than banks in normal system, we should fight that with a bitcoin core wallet without need to install all GB core, it would be less a man in the middle.

If you truly think that Bitcoin is owned by bitcoin.org, then that means all cryptocurrency is centralized since each cryptocurrency have it's own active/most recognized developer or team.

Besides, decentralized pool, wallet and exchange already exist today, even though no one use decentralized pool and decentralized exchange still have small amount of user.

Of course not, but for example, the Electrum is the only computer wallet i know that supports RBF (Replace By Fee) function, i dont know other computer wallet that supports it and i had some big problems in the past not doing RBF supported transactions, so, if id like to do RBF support transactions i can only use Electrum, what type of decentralization is that?

I should have the possibility of using bitcoin core node wallet, without need to install the full node or prune, because i dont even have a good internet to install it. This way bitcoin core software would have 3 modes of running, full node mode, prune mode and wallet mode.

[HeRetiK]

Of course not, but for example, the Electrum is the only computer wallet i know that supports RBF (Replace By Fee) function, i dont know other computer wallet that supports it and i had some big problems in the past not doing RBF supported transactions, so, if id like to do RBF support transactions i can only use Electrum, what type of decentralization is that?

Bitcoin Core has been supporting RBF since 0.12:
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.12.0#opt-in-replace-by-fee-transactions

GreenAddress also supports RBF:
https://greenaddress.it/en/faq.html

Armory:
https://btcarmory.com/0.96.0-release/

And probably some other wallets as well that I'm not aware of. So there you go, RBF choice galore. And that's just desktop.

I should have the possibility of using bitcoin core node wallet, without need to install the full node or prune, because i dont even have a good internet to install it. This way bitcoin core software would have 3 modes of running, full node mode, prune mode and wallet mode.

Maybe some time in the future, if there's demand. I've got a feeling that there's more important things to tackle in Bitcoin development than yet another SPV wallet. Until then there's plenty of other open source choices with great track records.

[cfbtcman]

Of course not, but for example, the Electrum is the only computer wallet i know that supports RBF (Replace By Fee) function, i dont know other computer wallet that supports it and i had some big problems in the past not doing RBF supported transactions, so, if id like to do RBF support transactions i can only use Electrum, what type of decentralization is that?

Bitcoin Core has been supporting RBF since 0.12:
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.12.0#opt-in-replace-by-fee-transactions

GreenAddress also supports RBF:
https://greenaddress.it/en/faq.html

Armory:
https://btcarmory.com/0.96.0-release/

And probably some other wallets as well that I'm not aware of. So there you go, RBF choice galore. And that's just desktop.

I should have the possibility of using bitcoin core node wallet, without need to install the full node or prune, because i dont even have a good internet to install it. This way bitcoin core software would have 3 modes of running, full node mode, prune mode and wallet mode.

Maybe some time in the future, if there's demand. I've got a feeling that there's more important things to tackle in Bitcoin development than yet another SPV wallet. Until then there's plenty of other open source choices with great track records.

Yes, Bitcoin core supports RBF, so it should be nice to use it as only wallet and not node mode.
Greenaddress its not desktop wallet, its web wallet.
That btcarmory seems nice, i need to test it, thanks.

P.S.-Blockchain.com dont supports RBF, i had problems with them because the transaction keeps going automatically to the network with low fees and never was rejected, i was 5 mounths without my money and they dont even care about answering emails about RBF implementation.
If the bitcoin didnt had crashed in value today would be the day i was still without my money, RBF should be obligatory in all the wallets.

[cfbtcman]

And what about using prune mode?
I never installed a full node, i need to download the pruned node software in some place or for that i only setup the actual core and i can choose pruned mode?

[bones261]

And what about using prune mode?
I never installed a full node, i need to download the pruned node software in some place or for that i only setup the actual core and i can choose pruned mode?

All you have to do is either use the prune switch when opening the file via command line,

Code:

bitcoin-qt -prune=<n>

or add this line to the .conf file in your data directory.

Code:

prune=<n>

(where N is the number of blocks you want to prune to and is equal to or greater than 550.)

[cfbtcman]

Its a "vertical" solution, seems a very interesting thing, but if block size go up to 1GB the minimum blocksize hosted would be 550GB or 1GB if they changed the minimum requirements for only 1 block.

My solution its like a "horizontal" one, even if block go up to 1GB, with different TYPE nodes i would save only 2MB for each block.

That needs to be implemented, we can save a lot of space and could scale better than BCH, there is no way of bitcoin could scale even with LN working 100% withou some block size grow.

LN massive adoption to all transactions in the world would generate a lot of (ONCHAIN <-> OFFCHAIN) transactions that 2MB will not support, we need to have a little more and to dont waste space resources in nodes a solution like TYPE NODES would be the answer.

[HCP]

There is also a setting in the GUI...

[bones261]

@OP. To be frank, I'm not quite understanding your solution. We already have SPV wallets(like electrum.) With an SPV wallet, you only have to get the data that you need to verify your own transactions. Also, I don't think mining pools are going to want to engage in having a sharded node. They will need access to the full block so they can properly determine that the block is indeed valid, and proceed to continue to build on top of it.

[cfbtcman]

I see that this can be a good solution to have a wallet node without need to download all blockchain, i will try it.
The solution i talk about is a different thing, could be parte of this topic, but its here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5070680

The target is the posibility of saving big blocks divided by many TYPE nodes, like if the block was saved divided in 2 parts (2 nodes) we would have a pair of TYPE A/TYPE B node blocks, if the block was saved in 3 parts (3 nodes) we would have a group of TYPE A/B/C node blocks and so on.

That way we could have for example always a maximum of 2MB from each block in each node.

That woul mantain the data resources for each node like now even for bigger block size.