Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.175; envelope-from=jordanmack1981@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-yx0-f175.google.com; 
Sender: Jordan Mack <jordanmack1981@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EEF6EA2.4060709@parhelic.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:04:34 -0800
From: Jordan Mack <jordanmack@parhelic.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CAJna-HjyZv2y9grNdnKKG8k6tn7jdW=zL=vtrALpeW8jkuzV6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGQP0AEEzOjc2ayOJYgs_oh4RG91Dp4JSHUjyPX=qdp+ri6oSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201112191130.43721.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <201112191130.43721.luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases
Precedence: list

I still think HTTPS should be used, at the minimum. Using HTTPS is 
standard to every website out there that deals with financials, even if 
it is not a perfect system. Why should Bitcoin adopt a more lax policy 
than everyone else?

I thought that JSON support was fairly common these days. I personally 
prefer XML in most cases, but since JSON is already used with the RPC, 
it seemed like a natural fit here. Binary data can be base64 encoded, 
although I'm not sure why you would need to send back binary in an alias 
response.

What exactly do you mean by "custom output script"?


On 12/19/2011 8:30 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> I'd prefer we stick to simple standards.
> HTTP alone should really be fine to build on...
>
> JSON in particular has very poor language support, and cannot reasonably
> represent binary data (such as a custom output script). The HTTP
> specification, however, allows binary data in multipart content just fine.