Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-06-21 📝 Original message:Protobuf vs. JSON was a ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-06-21
📝 Original message:Protobuf vs. JSON was a deliberate decision. Afaik Protobuf was chosen
because of its strong types, less vulnerability to malleability and very
good platform support. Having coded both, I can say Protobuf is not more
difficult than JSON. (Actually the entire Bitcoin P2P protocol should be
based on Protobuf, but that's another story.)
Yes, all extensions to BIP70 should go into new BIPs. Note the plural
here: if you have orthogonal ideas I strongly suggest one BIP per idea
so they can be discussed and implemented (or rejected) separately.
On 06/20/2016 07:33 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP 0070 has been a a moderate success, however, IMO:
>
> - protocol buffers are inappropriate since ease of use and extensibility
> is desired over the minor gains of efficiency in this protocol. Not too
> late to support JSON messages as the standard going forward
>
> - problematic reliance on merchant-supplied https (X509) as the sole
> form of mechant identification. alternate schemes (dnssec/netki), pgp
> and possibly keybase seem like good ideas. personally, i like keybase,
> since there is no reliance on the existing domain-name system (you can
> sell with a github id, for example)
>
> - missing an optional client supplied identification
>
> - lack of basic subscription support
>
> /Proposed for subscriptions:/
>
> - BIP0047 payment codes are recommended instead of wallet addresses when
> establishing subscriptions. Or, merchants can specify replacement
> addresses in ACK/NACK responses. UI confirms are /required /when there
> are no replacement addresses or payment codes used.
>
> - Wallets must confirm and store subscriptions, and are responsible for
> initiating them at the specified interval.
>
> - Intervals can /only /be from a preset list: weekly, biweekly, or 1,
> 2,3,4,6 or 12 months. Intervals missed by more than 3 days cause
> suspension until the user re-verifies.
>
> - Wallets /may /optionally ask the user whether they want to be notified
> and confirm every interval - or not. Wallets that do not ask /must
> /notify before initiating each payment. Interval confirmations should
> begin at /least /1 day in advance of the next payment.
>
> /Proposed in general:
> /
> - JSON should be used instead of protocol buffers going forward. Easier
> to use, explain extend.
>
> - "Extendible" URI-like scheme to support multi-mode identity mechanisms
> on both payment and subscription requests. Support for keybase://,
> netki:// and others as alternates to https://.
>
> - Support for client as well as merchant multi-mode verification
>
> - Ideally, the identity verification URI scheme is somewhat
> orthogonal/independent of the payment request itself
>
> Question:
>
> Should this be a new BIP? I know netki's BIP75 is out there - but I
> think it's too specific and too reliant on the domain name system.
>
> Maybe an identity-protocol-agnostic BIP + solid implementation of a
> couple major protocols without any mention of payment URI's ... just a
> way of sending and receiving identity verified messages in general?
>
> I would be happy to implement plugins for identity protocols, if anyone
> thinks this is a good idea.
>
> Does anyone think https:// or keybase, or PGP or netki all by
> themselves, is enough - or is it always better to have an extensible
> protocol?
>
> - Erik Aronesty
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
📝 Original message:Protobuf vs. JSON was a deliberate decision. Afaik Protobuf was chosen
because of its strong types, less vulnerability to malleability and very
good platform support. Having coded both, I can say Protobuf is not more
difficult than JSON. (Actually the entire Bitcoin P2P protocol should be
based on Protobuf, but that's another story.)
Yes, all extensions to BIP70 should go into new BIPs. Note the plural
here: if you have orthogonal ideas I strongly suggest one BIP per idea
so they can be discussed and implemented (or rejected) separately.
On 06/20/2016 07:33 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP 0070 has been a a moderate success, however, IMO:
>
> - protocol buffers are inappropriate since ease of use and extensibility
> is desired over the minor gains of efficiency in this protocol. Not too
> late to support JSON messages as the standard going forward
>
> - problematic reliance on merchant-supplied https (X509) as the sole
> form of mechant identification. alternate schemes (dnssec/netki), pgp
> and possibly keybase seem like good ideas. personally, i like keybase,
> since there is no reliance on the existing domain-name system (you can
> sell with a github id, for example)
>
> - missing an optional client supplied identification
>
> - lack of basic subscription support
>
> /Proposed for subscriptions:/
>
> - BIP0047 payment codes are recommended instead of wallet addresses when
> establishing subscriptions. Or, merchants can specify replacement
> addresses in ACK/NACK responses. UI confirms are /required /when there
> are no replacement addresses or payment codes used.
>
> - Wallets must confirm and store subscriptions, and are responsible for
> initiating them at the specified interval.
>
> - Intervals can /only /be from a preset list: weekly, biweekly, or 1,
> 2,3,4,6 or 12 months. Intervals missed by more than 3 days cause
> suspension until the user re-verifies.
>
> - Wallets /may /optionally ask the user whether they want to be notified
> and confirm every interval - or not. Wallets that do not ask /must
> /notify before initiating each payment. Interval confirmations should
> begin at /least /1 day in advance of the next payment.
>
> /Proposed in general:
> /
> - JSON should be used instead of protocol buffers going forward. Easier
> to use, explain extend.
>
> - "Extendible" URI-like scheme to support multi-mode identity mechanisms
> on both payment and subscription requests. Support for keybase://,
> netki:// and others as alternates to https://.
>
> - Support for client as well as merchant multi-mode verification
>
> - Ideally, the identity verification URI scheme is somewhat
> orthogonal/independent of the payment request itself
>
> Question:
>
> Should this be a new BIP? I know netki's BIP75 is out there - but I
> think it's too specific and too reliant on the domain name system.
>
> Maybe an identity-protocol-agnostic BIP + solid implementation of a
> couple major protocols without any mention of payment URI's ... just a
> way of sending and receiving identity verified messages in general?
>
> I would be happy to implement plugins for identity protocols, if anyone
> thinks this is a good idea.
>
> Does anyone think https:// or keybase, or PGP or netki all by
> themselves, is enough - or is it always better to have an extensible
> protocol?
>
> - Erik Aronesty
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>