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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YDJ7V-0004vF-Dr
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:40:21 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YDJ7T-0003fK-RK
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:40:21 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id x13so33533402wgg.12
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:40:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.107.164 with SMTP id hd4mr11374005wib.7.1421700013440;
Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.9 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:40:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54BD6314.60607@gmail.com>
References: <CAN5esQJe0uUm0NyctaBa6WH7_JjeE_OLR=FY_XQWnSr50VRDyA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0OTynX4oiQoyanpRKE2tpAuS4L5X-2j20328725J9RrvQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2C7D6208-1921-4DDC-90FE-DB1ABE1D61DB@petertodd.org>
<CAN5esQLCV=L0kYxDGhK2F=qZ8OqMxyYS+-Pn17U_M+nV4Sj3Og@mail.gmail.com>
<54BD6314.60607@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:40:13 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZeIzx4iWyaug9fojXNF5l9x58Ho
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3ZdFcQsP+EWgTYQDccFZbrZFTk+xi-YdWPCJzMRH79pA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba0854745fb050d075487
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1YDJ7T-0003fK-RK
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <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: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:40:21 -0000
--e89a8f3ba0854745fb050d075487
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I'm a bit confused. It's been a long time since I looked at protobuf (and
> will have to dig into it soon), but I seem to recall it doesn't have any of
> the determinism properties you guys just said.
>
It's not guaranteed no, which is why we store signed sub-messages as byte
arrays instead of typed submessages. In practice though, most
implementations do seem to serialise things the same way. I recall Python
used to be an odd one out, unsure if it still is.
OK, I guess we can boil this down more simply. BIP 70 uses protocol buffers
because I designed it and implemented the original prototype (with lots of
input from Gavin and an earlier proposal by sipa). I used protocol buffers
because, beyond all their nice properties, I used to work at Google and so
was very familiar with them.
--e89a8f3ba0854745fb050d075487
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">I'=
m a bit confused.=C2=A0 It's been a long time since I looked at
protobuf (and will have to dig into it soon), but I seem to recall
it doesn't have any of the determinism properties you guys just
said.=C2=A0</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's not guarante=
ed no, which is why we store signed sub-messages as byte arrays instead of =
typed submessages. In practice though, most implementations do seem to seri=
alise things the same way. I recall Python used to be an odd one out, unsur=
e if it still is.</div><div><br></div><div>OK, I guess we can boil this dow=
n more simply. BIP 70 uses protocol buffers because I designed it and imple=
mented the original prototype (with lots of input from Gavin and an earlier=
proposal by sipa). I used protocol buffers because, beyond all their nice =
properties, I used to work at Google and so was very familiar with them.</d=
iv><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--e89a8f3ba0854745fb050d075487--
|
