Steve Myers
Steve Myers
Do we really need forward and backwards compatibility baked into the data structures for persisted data? My understanding is that the data BDK persists should always able to be regenerated...
I added this to the alpha.4 milestone to decide at least if we're going to do this or not since it's a biggish functional change.
@tnull do we only need to expose the existing rust [`add_foreign_utxo`](https://docs.rs/bdk/1.0.0-alpha.1/bdk/wallet/tx_builder/struct.TxBuilder.html#method.add_foreign_utxo) function in the language bindings? That should allow you to create a transaction in BDK that spends a UTXO...
Thanks guys, closing for now. Happy to re-open if needed.
Based on comments in #740 I'm adding this to the Alpha 1.0.0 milestone.
I think I found something that was slowing down the the pre-1.0 address caching, still WIP but see #985.
This needs to be re-tested with the new 1.0 `bitcoind_rpc` client.
Makes sense. Anyone who ran into this issue please try the shiny new 1.0.0-alpha block by block rpc syncing and let us know if you see any performance issues.
Closing this issue, it's a big to nebulous an idea and testing will be different post bdk_core 1.0 changes.
@nickfarrow have you seen this issue with 1.0.0-alpha? If it's fixed in 1.0.0-alpha I'd like to close this issue.