📅 Original date posted:2011-12-19
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author suggests that a simple plain text response of an address is sufficient for alias resolution, but worries about future compatibility issues.
📝 Original message:If alias resolution was guaranteed to always be just the address, then
yes, I would opt for no serialization at all. A simple plain text
response of an address is about as simple as it can get.
There are already a lot of good ideas floating around about how the
alias protocol could be extended. Is it really going to stay that simple
for long? I would personally much just have a serialized response
upfront, rather than having to worry about backward compatibility in the
future.
On 12/19/2011 10:17 AM, slush wrote:
> In my opinion, there's not necessary any payload format (json, xml,
> multipart). In keeping stuff KISS, everything we need is just an address
> in response + potentially some stuff like HTTP redirects (for providing
> additional compatibility for proposal of bitcoin URIs with "amount",
> "label" and other parts). I don't see reason why we need some extra
> payload yet.
Jordan Mack [ARCHIVE] /
npub18y…3txp2
2023-06-07 02:44:58
in reply to nevent1q…vpts
Author Public Key
npub18yq2ukhtlnkuzzykluyjvxap3vtvdqf0arvtag6rx02klk6gymgqp3txp2Published at
2023-06-07 02:44:58Event JSON
{
"id": "b242acfefbe44e2fa5fc5c38c05c12b2da8b3fc6b2731266675fe49bace5215c",
"pubkey": "3900ae5aebfcedc10896ff09261ba18b16c6812fe8d8bea34333d56fdb4826d0",
"created_at": 1686105898,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"247922e9146ee6b54a634fc05ad7a489892c01debcd0510d008be95a47f6db80",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e0d5b0c60b69b673592d13ccf85e4db3d63ed85ee939bfb42f87c645464e33b1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3900ae5aebfcedc10896ff09261ba18b16c6812fe8d8bea34333d56fdb4826d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-12-19\n🗒️ Summary of this message: The author suggests that a simple plain text response of an address is sufficient for alias resolution, but worries about future compatibility issues.\n📝 Original message:If alias resolution was guaranteed to always be just the address, then \nyes, I would opt for no serialization at all. A simple plain text \nresponse of an address is about as simple as it can get.\n\nThere are already a lot of good ideas floating around about how the \nalias protocol could be extended. Is it really going to stay that simple \nfor long? I would personally much just have a serialized response \nupfront, rather than having to worry about backward compatibility in the \nfuture.\n\nOn 12/19/2011 10:17 AM, slush wrote:\n\u003e In my opinion, there's not necessary any payload format (json, xml,\n\u003e multipart). In keeping stuff KISS, everything we need is just an address\n\u003e in response + potentially some stuff like HTTP redirects (for providing\n\u003e additional compatibility for proposal of bitcoin URIs with \"amount\",\n\u003e \"label\" and other parts). I don't see reason why we need some extra\n\u003e payload yet.",
"sig": "788f07cdd368f5786a3bcae6b7815c217a01bd2a1eeb1c89d2695b8928e10304cb851b7645a33d724a1946750c232dad08e9323bdb78ad5d90b8915260512bc6"
}