Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rcihy-0003pP-1V for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:17:10 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Rcihu-0002HO-1D for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:17:09 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D7D756000E; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:17:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:16:54 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.4-gentoo; KDE/4.7.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <201112191315.25857.luke@dashjr.org> <4EEF8806.6070707@parhelic.com> In-Reply-To: <4EEF8806.6070707@parhelic.com> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112191416.56029.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -2.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Rcihu-0002HO-1D Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:17:10 -0000 On Monday, December 19, 2011 1:52:54 PM Jordan Mack wrote: > I believe I'm missing something here. I was under the interpretation > that alias resolution was going the KISS route, of basically a single > HTTP request and response. How do you see binary data fitting into this? Bitcoin is a binary system. Not all payment outputs are necessarily serializable into addresses, and assuming they are would be broken-by-design. In other words, why send the user's *software* "pay to address foo" just to have it turn that into a script (of limited subset), when you can send the script itself and avoid all the possible problems? Doing this right also means that if the user's client doesn't support version 255 addresses, it still works fine. > I'm not going to pretend that I know all the details of the difficulties > that were encountered with JSON-RPC. But in the argument of developer > accessibility, it still serves a purpose. If JSON-RPC support is > removed, you will immediately lose a large pool of high level language > developers. JSON isn't problem-free at high-level either. To summarize one of the issues, almost every implementation of JSON treats Numbers differently based on whether they have a '.' in them or not. MIME has been around much longer, and should have sufficient support in every language by now. For some reason, Python calls the module 'email'.