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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jrn@jrn.me.uk>) id 1YFW9k-0003mV-Uy
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:59:49 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from hapkido.dreamhost.com ([66.33.216.122])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1YFW9j-00045O-LX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:59:49 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com
[208.97.132.208])
by hapkido.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA2F8AC6D
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:59:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by homiemail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462F820806C;
Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:59:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.227] (cpc15-sgyl29-2-0-cust655.18-2.cable.virginm.net
[82.39.74.144])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: jrn@jrn.me.uk)
by homiemail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9FF3208069;
Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:59:39 -0800 (PST)
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
X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [66.33.216.122 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YFW9j-00045O-LX
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: why Google Protocol Buffers for
encoding?
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: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:59:49 -0000
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
|
