📅 Original date posted:2014-06-17
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 June 2014, at 9:57 am, Wladimir wrote:
>> Yes, as I said in the github topic
>> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4351) I suggest we adapt a
>> string-based name space for extensions.
>
> Why use textual strings? These fields are not for human consumption. Why not use UUIDs, which are fixed length and will not waste as much bandwidth in the protocol? Or if you'd prefer a hierarchical namespace, you could use OIDs, a la ASN.1.
Come on, this is only sent over the line at connection time at most
once. No need to overdesign a scheme here.
Anyhow, if we like to bike-shed so much:
- UUIDs are 16 bytes -- most human-recognizable strings are shorter.
And they're ugly to use as well.
- OIDs need central and hierarchical coordination, just what we're
trying to avoid.
Wladimir
Wladimir [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…ymc2p
2023-06-07 15:22:57
in reply to nevent1q…mw44
Author Public Key
npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2pPublished at
2023-06-07 15:22:57Event JSON
{
"id": "cf2ebbcdb51de4bf3785c2162c372de615c30f34955e4e8943ac3601ec023181",
"pubkey": "30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722",
"created_at": 1686151377,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"51755e520e5fac5e694b75add8f1aed031a6d31795ec0eb481e5e52e0d57e975",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4431cf1352d93ed359501a59a5c567c29033deb307bc90a655ba007cebeeacdc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-06-17\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Matt Whitlock \u003cbip at mattwhitlock.name\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Tuesday, 17 June 2014, at 9:57 am, Wladimir wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Yes, as I said in the github topic\n\u003e\u003e (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4351) I suggest we adapt a\n\u003e\u003e string-based name space for extensions.\n\u003e\n\u003e Why use textual strings? These fields are not for human consumption. Why not use UUIDs, which are fixed length and will not waste as much bandwidth in the protocol? Or if you'd prefer a hierarchical namespace, you could use OIDs, a la ASN.1.\n\nCome on, this is only sent over the line at connection time at most\nonce. No need to overdesign a scheme here.\n\nAnyhow, if we like to bike-shed so much:\n- UUIDs are 16 bytes -- most human-recognizable strings are shorter.\nAnd they're ugly to use as well.\n- OIDs need central and hierarchical coordination, just what we're\ntrying to avoid.\n\nWladimir",
"sig": "aebc313cbd4c0f31ccc02676ce47e297ffc5bc8e07c3a0e7b80ba071b21de021e4c5ff2a18a3ae8ed38ebc15ff5911fb6a2ec8b12f65eb3853f3ba72886d608f"
}