Message-ID: <54C57559.3090205@jrn.me.uk>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:59:37 +0000
From: Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>
References: <54BD7024.5070008@jrn.me.uk>
	<CANEZrP3ZdFcQsP+EWgTYQDccFZbrZFTk+xi-YdWPCJzMRH79pA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150124131934.C9E6FE2A9B0@quidecco.de>
In-Reply-To: <20150124131934.C9E6FE2A9B0@quidecco.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: why Google Protocol Buffers for
 encoding?
Precedence: list

That was essentially what we did in the end, we replaced the network
identifier ("main"/"test") with the genesis block hash. The result is
never going to accidentally work with Bitcoin Core (nor vice-versa), but
is readily extensible to any other altcoins that want to use the
specification without requiring any sort of central registry.

Ross

On 24/01/15 13:19, Isidor Zeuner wrote:
>> For what it's worth, there was consideration of replacing protocol
>> buffers when modifying BIP70 to function with the altcoin I work on
>> (changes were required anyway in eliminate any risk that payment
>> requests could not be accidentally applied to the wrong blockchain).
>
> Why not serialize some kind of blockchain identifier with the
> messages? Arbitrarily deviating from a given design choice just for
> the sake of doing it differently may serve the goal of creating more
> overall code diversity, but would not necessarily serve the quality of
> the blockchain network where it is done for.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Isidor