š
Original date posted:2016-06-21
š Original message:On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 08:44:37PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2016 5:33:32 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
>
> IMO JSON is too prone to gratuitous inefficiency (both at network and CPU
> level), parser bugs, etc. Even the best C implementation (jansson) has serious
> issues with Number handling.
>
> A few years ago, I looked into binary alternatives to JSON and concluded they
> all had problems, while it seems more than reasonable to do even dynamic
> parsing of protobuf messages. So to conclude, I prefer to stick to protobuf
> unless a clearly superior protocol turns up.
I'll second that statement.
Ease of use isn't a very good criteria for security-critical software handling
money, and the JSON standard has a very large amount of degrees of freedom in
how people have implemented it historically. Even protobuf I'd personally avoid
using on that basis, as protobuf encoding isn't deterministic: you can encode
the same data in multiple ways.
Unfortunately there isn't a viable alternative, so we're probably stuck with
protobuf right now for standards that want to see wide adoption in the near
future; I've got a few projects that need an alternative, which I'm working on,
but that's a ways off.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160621/ab86e67e/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 17:51:19
in reply to nevent1qā¦qmjq
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 17:51:19Event JSON
{
"id": "311125baa15f99adac211bcd9db7ffe587bf94db0130e369a3c3f311b222d10b",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686160279,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a5039b46ff53fe0ad45fb1e565b7c7f05169b35d2126c2ee18198a6f3405f573",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a1dd61464b481ab92d7d6cc137889e16af964e12f8de794e5df522a6b06b0afd",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2016-06-21\nš Original message:On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 08:44:37PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Monday, June 20, 2016 5:33:32 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e BIP 0070 has been a a moderate success, however, IMO:\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e - protocol buffers are inappropriate since ease of use and extensibility is\n\u003e \u003e desired over the minor gains of efficiency in this protocol. Not too late\n\u003e \u003e to support JSON messages as the standard going forward\n\u003e \n\u003e IMO JSON is too prone to gratuitous inefficiency (both at network and CPU \n\u003e level), parser bugs, etc. Even the best C implementation (jansson) has serious \n\u003e issues with Number handling.\n\u003e \n\u003e A few years ago, I looked into binary alternatives to JSON and concluded they \n\u003e all had problems, while it seems more than reasonable to do even dynamic \n\u003e parsing of protobuf messages. So to conclude, I prefer to stick to protobuf \n\u003e unless a clearly superior protocol turns up.\n\nI'll second that statement.\n\nEase of use isn't a very good criteria for security-critical software handling\nmoney, and the JSON standard has a very large amount of degrees of freedom in\nhow people have implemented it historically. Even protobuf I'd personally avoid\nusing on that basis, as protobuf encoding isn't deterministic: you can encode\nthe same data in multiple ways.\n\nUnfortunately there isn't a viable alternative, so we're probably stuck with\nprotobuf right now for standards that want to see wide adoption in the near\nfuture; I've got a few projects that need an alternative, which I'm working on,\nbut that's a ways off.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 455 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160621/ab86e67e/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "ecb0e4d483da86fa70ca8eb32dc66603c054b623209ae0bd2e16a73d76b3e7b7b0ef54df620458ec1021bcab9bb0f2ade04c5de33f69b8416fd98028e8a638ca"
}