Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <jordanmack1981@gmail.com>) id 1Rcino-00073V-KE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:23:12 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.161.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.175; envelope-from=jordanmack1981@gmail.com; helo=mail-gx0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-gx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.161.175]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Rcinm-0007YG-B2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:23:12 +0000 Received: by ggnh1 with SMTP id h1so5785147ggn.34 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:23:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.135.71 with SMTP id pq7mr29525824igb.26.1324322584877; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:23:04 -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 j3sm70301899ibj.1.2011.12.19.11.23.02 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:23:03 -0800 (PST) Sender: Jordan Mack <jordanmack1981@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4EEF8F13.70508@parhelic.com> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:22:59 -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> <4EEF6EA2.4060709@parhelic.com> <CAJna-HgjkC95pt+REmLi2tUh7MVmP-nYwLgzCzrK78qBmEcE_Q@mail.gmail.com> <4EEF7EB4.6070800@parhelic.com> <CAJna-Hgq2CLq+bKxHweGtH4ujjYoNtbBY25XwdQXOd4GNdEnyg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJna-Hgq2CLq+bKxHweGtH4ujjYoNtbBY25XwdQXOd4GNdEnyg@mail.gmail.com> 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: 1Rcinm-0007YG-B2 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 19:23:12 -0000 If alias resolution was guaranteed to always be just the address, then yes, I would opt for no serialization at all. A simple plain text response of an address is about as simple as it can get. There are already a lot of good ideas floating around about how the alias protocol could be extended. Is it really going to stay that simple for long? I would personally much just have a serialized response upfront, rather than having to worry about backward compatibility in the future. On 12/19/2011 10:17 AM, slush wrote: > In my opinion, there's not necessary any payload format (json, xml, > multipart). In keeping stuff KISS, everything we need is just an address > in response + potentially some stuff like HTTP redirects (for providing > additional compatibility for proposal of bitcoin URIs with "amount", > "label" and other parts). I don't see reason why we need some extra > payload yet.