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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jordanmack1981@gmail.com>) id 1Rcgdv-0005wW-8m
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:04:51 +0000
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;
Received: from mail-yx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Rcgdq-0001m3-0e
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:04:51 +0000
Received: by yenm12 with SMTP id m12so3810152yen.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:04:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.22.164 with SMTP id t24mr29080454yht.67.1324314280675;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:04:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (c-67-188-239-72.hsd1.ca.comcast.net.
[67.188.239.72])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm48363315anz.14.2011.12.19.09.04.38
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:04:39 -0800 (PST)
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
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(jordanmack1981[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.1 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (jordanmack1981[at]gmail.com)
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
X-Headers-End: 1Rcgdq-0001m3-0e
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases
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: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:04:51 -0000
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.
|
