📅 Original date posted:2015-01-28
📝 Original message:On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Nicolas DORIER wrote:
> I agree that the use protocol buffer and x509 by BIP70 is a poor choice.
Well x509 is an international standard in common use, you can't do much
better with regard to portability. Your suggestion about HTTPS makes
little sense, you do know what TLS uses x509 internally as well?
Re: protocol buffers, I don't know if it's the best possible one, but one
serialization method had to be picked. If it weren't, we could still have
still been discussing which one to use by now. Just like for JSON there
are bindings for many languages.
Though JSON parsers are much more diverse, which people using Bitcoin
Core's RPC have bumped into e.g. some have some problems
handling large numbers. Something you wouldn't expect using a
straightforward binary format. There's no obvious best choice.
Wladimir
Wladimir [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…ymc2p
2023-06-07 15:28:40
in reply to nevent1q…9s2h
Author Public Key
npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2pPublished at
2023-06-07 15:28:40Event JSON
{
"id": "5a4d96c9d3b9d847f512daf5edd23f65e342030958e4f04eb67e3143a4aabadf",
"pubkey": "30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722",
"created_at": 1686151720,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e1f7de9a3cc96853dcc43455df7f54523449e553ee4cde336d6870fe0e40792d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cfc67eebdb50ca22b7b7a2ccf44ce1cf3eee0a85bed03e41b8f2fb95e1f32f37",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c36b9d72893255290a608e60c6cc55354b3925bc3ec3afd1872ee6ee68c59778"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-01-28\n📝 Original message:On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Nicolas DORIER wrote:\n\n\u003e I agree that the use protocol buffer and x509 by BIP70 is a poor choice.\n\nWell x509 is an international standard in common use, you can't do much \nbetter with regard to portability. Your suggestion about HTTPS makes \nlittle sense, you do know what TLS uses x509 internally as well?\n\nRe: protocol buffers, I don't know if it's the best possible one, but one \nserialization method had to be picked. If it weren't, we could still have \nstill been discussing which one to use by now. Just like for JSON there \nare bindings for many languages.\n\nThough JSON parsers are much more diverse, which people using Bitcoin \nCore's RPC have bumped into e.g. some have some problems \nhandling large numbers. Something you wouldn't expect using a \nstraightforward binary format. There's no obvious best choice.\n\nWladimir",
"sig": "4dfd01e956dd21da7e5265a19fe2aaee7d9af17bb4b7094c3d18604fdb646f3f14cc50424f81ebf9e2ae58fc51c700fd34ae2adc969c55ce7f6034f3cd3879aa"
}