Author

Topic:   (Read 1229 times)

sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 251
physics, mathematics and engineering
July 05, 2017, 08:40:29 AM
#13
What you want cannot be done to my knowledge.  Even if there were two local cores with different names and service macros, I do not think that they can share the same data at the same time, basically access arguments. 

If they shared one at a time, always one not running, it still shouldn't cause constant resyncing because the core writes files at shutdown that tell it where it last touched the wallet dat and other information and when the other core alters the wallet files and then the first one comes back, it will be pissed that it is not as it left it and probably want to resync.

Propably you would have to edit the code slightly and compile it yourself to get it running, so the problem you mentioned won´t appear
hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 506
July 04, 2017, 02:18:52 PM
#12
What you want cannot be done to my knowledge.  Even if there were two local cores with different names and service macros, I do not think that they can share the same data at the same time, basically access arguments. 

If they shared one at a time, always one not running, it still shouldn't cause constant resyncing because the core writes files at shutdown that tell it where it last touched the wallet dat and other information and when the other core alters the wallet files and then the first one comes back, it will be pissed that it is not as it left it and probably want to resync.
hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 503
👉bit.ly/3QXp3oh | 🔥 Ultimate Launc
July 04, 2017, 02:00:41 PM
#11
What you want cannot be done to my knowledge.  Even if there were two local cores with different names and service macros, I do not think that they can share the same data at the same time, basically access arguments. 
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 251
physics, mathematics and engineering
July 03, 2017, 12:55:45 PM
#10
I have no need for this so I haven´t tried it yet, but I think it should be possible if you set up a NAS with the blockchain on it.
Both (node and wallet could use one copy). Local access should not be to hard.
sr. member
Activity: 415
Merit: 250
July 03, 2017, 12:52:51 PM
#9
I have a 256gb laptop I would like to use as a wallet, but am not familiar enough with other clients, and would like to run a wallet on it.

I also have a full node running on my LAN/WAN.

Is it possible to configure a Core client to point to a local full node instead of having to download yet another copy of the blockchain ?


The answer to your base question is yes, with a huge amount of effort and workarounds that are not worth the time.  But, that answers whether the core can use a blockchain copy that is not local to it, and that is a yes.
sr. member
Activity: 415
Merit: 250
July 02, 2017, 02:14:15 PM
#8
Off the top of my head, I imagine that the best network arrangement to hit that node and the blockchain behind it would be symbolic links.  If you can fully convince your OS that a network drive is a local drive, not too hard, then you are in good shape.  But, even though it will take time and use space, I would just go ahead and copy the block chain from the network space to your laptop. 

That should be faster than dling a copy and will be almost the full sync once your local wallet starts. You may have to stop your node briefly, copy the wallet.dat and then move then copy, otherwise the file will be constantly changing size and that might jack up the move.
hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 506
July 02, 2017, 01:23:55 AM
#7
Off the top of my head, I imagine that the best network arrangement to hit that node and the blockchain behind it would be symbolic links.  If you can fully convince your OS that a network drive is a local drive, not too hard, then you are in good shape.  But, even though it will take time and use space, I would just go ahead and copy the block chain from the network space to your laptop. 
sr. member
Activity: 2030
Merit: 356
June 23, 2017, 02:38:28 PM
#6
I have a 256gb laptop I would like to use as a wallet, but am not familiar enough with other clients, and would like to run a wallet on it.

I also have a full node running on my LAN/WAN.

Is it possible to configure a Core client to point to a local full node instead of having to download yet another copy of the blockchain ?


If you really want to play with core and experiment, then there are other coins with a smaller blockchain that you can do this with.  Also, if you are playing with the real blockchain and not testnet, then the other coins are lower in value and a mistake would cost you much less.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 500
June 18, 2017, 04:16:30 AM
#5
I would say that you should look at your goals and purpose of the things you want to do.  Yes, I have seen, with some tinkering and work, a VERY local network connection used to "host" a node and interact with it from nearby network locations.  It can be tricky and a real pain.  I would imagine that simply running core on the node machine and using SSH or whatever to use that core would be much easier.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 503
June 13, 2017, 01:33:01 AM
#4
the only way to pull it off would be a symbolic link or another setup where your local pc fully believes that a network directory is a local directory.  then you would have to build the bitcoin core up just above that directory.  even then, the network may be too slow for the process to work and if two bitcoin servers are trying to access to same wallet.dat, especially when writing the new blocks it could all fall apart.  just copy the blockchain from the network computer to your laptop, that will probably be a faster move than from an online source.
legendary
Activity: 2954
Merit: 4158
June 13, 2017, 01:20:42 AM
#3
What would you recommend as a good minimal client ? I downloaded Electrum the other day, and became confused and bewildered when it got to the part about the twelve word seed.
Electrum is the best IMO. The twelve word seed is the words that is used to generate the addresses that is in your Electrum wallet. It is basically your wallet.dat. Once you save the seeds, you don't have to save anything else to recover the wallet. Just save the seeds and you're good to go.
Ideally, I would like to use my existing wallet.dat's with something that doesn't require a full local blockchain.
Not for now. None of the wallet uses the same file format as Bitcoin Core when it comes to backup.
staff
Activity: 3374
Merit: 6530
Just writing some code
June 13, 2017, 12:50:55 AM
#2
No, Bitcoin Core cannot run without having a local copy of the blockchain. You can enable pruning though which will delete most of the blockchain after it has been verified. This saves a lot of space but makes reindexing and rescanning very difficult as the blockchain has to be downloaded again.
legendary
Activity: 1819
Merit: 5547
Neighborhood Shenanigans Dispenser
June 13, 2017, 12:40:28 AM
#1

Jump to: