1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <moon@justmoon.de>) id 1S3pGd-0002RP-Oa
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:44:59 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from sulfur.webpack.hosteurope.de ([217.115.142.104])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1S3pGb-0005br-3S for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:44:59 +0000
Received: from 84-73-121-121.dclient.hispeed.ch ([84.73.121.121]
helo=[192.168.0.21]); authenticated
by sulfur.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa
(TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
id 1S3pGV-0005GH-0M; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 14:44:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4F52204D.1040504@justmoon.de>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 14:44:45 +0100
From: Stefan Thomas <moon@justmoon.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <1330714301.3840.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1330714301.3840.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------070900020800010201070002"
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;moon@justmoon.de;1330782297;18bd1ac9;
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1S3pGb-0005br-3S
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:44:59 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070900020800010201070002
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Since several independent clients (I know at least libcoin
<https://github.com/ceptacle/libcoin/blob/master/src/coinHTTP/RequestHandler.cpp>
and BitcoinJS
<https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-server/tree/master/lib/rpc>) aim
to implement JSON-RPC APIs which are either a superset of the original
client's or have at least some compatible functions, I think you can
make a case for including JSON-RPC API calls within the domain of BIPs.
In this instance the BIP aims to create a common protocol between
different clients, miners, mining proxies and pools. That's a lot of
software, so standardization definitely seems like a good idea and I
can't think of a reason not to use the BIP process.
I have some comments on the content of the BIP, but since this thread is
more of a meta-discussion I'll wait until the BIP is officially proposed.
On 3/2/2012 7:51 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got sent this BIP:
>
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_DRAFT:_getmemorypool#JSON-RPC_Method:_getmemorypool
>
> What is your opinion on this? Is it BIP related?
>
> It is a implementation-specific non-bitcoin-protocol proposal. My
> understanding of BIPs is that
> they apply across bitcoin implementations and largely focus on the
> most generic use-cases
> (like the URIs) and the protocol. Things which affect all clients, and
> allow the system to function
> as a united whole.
>
> That BIPs especially focus on the protocol, and that something like
> this is outside the mandate
> of the BIP process.
>
> For instance, we could imagine a future scenario. Bitcoin-Qt is
> currently based off bitcoind's
> codebase. However wumpus built the client in mind with an abstraction
> layer to enable multiple
> backends (a good design). In our hypothetical situation, there are 3
> different backend codebases
> using Bitcoin-Qt. I do not think a proposal to mandate a changing to
> Bitcoin-Qt's abstraction
> layer or a change in the UI placement would be appropriate BIP material.
>
> OTOH, many clients do need to make use of URIs and the BIP process is
> totally correct, as it
> standardises a behaviour which is needed for interoperability of the
> network and community.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Virtualization& Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
> Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing
> also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--------------070900020800010201070002
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Since several independent clients (I know at least <a
href="https://github.com/ceptacle/libcoin/blob/master/src/coinHTTP/RequestHandler.cpp">libcoin</a>
and <a
href="https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-server/tree/master/lib/rpc">BitcoinJS</a>)
aim to implement JSON-RPC APIs which are either a superset of the
original client's or have at least some compatible functions, I
think you can make a case for including JSON-RPC API calls within
the domain of BIPs.<br>
<br>
In this instance the BIP aims to create a common protocol between
different clients, miners, mining proxies and pools. That's a lot of
software, so standardization definitely seems like a good idea and I
can't think of a reason not to use the BIP process.<br>
<br>
I have some comments on the content of the BIP, but since this
thread is more of a meta-discussion I'll wait until the BIP is
officially proposed.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/2/2012 7:51 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1330714301.3840.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times
new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">
<div>Hi,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I got sent this BIP:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_DRAFT:_getmemorypool#JSON-RPC_Method:_getmemorypool">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_DRAFT:_getmemorypool#JSON-RPC_Method:_getmemorypool</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What is your opinion on this? Is it BIP related?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is a implementation-specific non-bitcoin-protocol
proposal. My understanding of BIPs is that</div>
<div>they apply across bitcoin implementations and largely focus
on the most generic use-cases</div>
<div>(like the URIs) and the protocol. Things which affect all
clients, and allow the system to function</div>
<div>as a united whole.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That BIPs especially focus on the protocol, and that
something like this is outside the mandate</div>
<div>of the BIP process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For instance, we could imagine a future scenario.
Bitcoin-Qt is currently based off bitcoind's</div>
<div>codebase. However wumpus built the client in mind with an
abstraction layer to enable multiple</div>
<div>backends (a good design). In our hypothetical situation,
there are 3 different backend codebases</div>
<div>using <span style="font-size: 12pt; ">Bitcoin-Qt. I do not
think a proposal to mandate a changing to Bitcoin-Qt's
abstraction</span></div>
<div>layer or a change in the UI placement would be appropriate
BIP material.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>OTOH, many clients do need to make use of URIs and the BIP
process is totally correct, as it</div>
<div>standardises a behaviour which is needed for
interoperability of the network and community.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thoughts?</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing
also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/">http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------070900020800010201070002--
|
