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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1YGSjk-00085K-SS
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:32:52 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.180; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YGSjg-0003SP-81
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:32:52 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id h11so11866759wiw.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 28 Jan 2015 05:32:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.180.20.50 with SMTP id k18mr7249596wie.31.1422451963265;
Wed, 28 Jan 2015 05:32:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from amethyst.lan (e107003.upc-e.chello.nl. [213.93.107.3])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bj3sm2858060wib.3.2015.01.28.05.32.40
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 28 Jan 2015 05:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:32:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Nicolas DORIER <nicolas.dorier@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALYO6Xt-jTYwpywUaH-s4YPYyGUp1_BLSEswscnwX+Vu166Lcw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1501281419110.21680@nzrgulfg.ivfhpber.pbz>
References: <CALYO6Xt-jTYwpywUaH-s4YPYyGUp1_BLSEswscnwX+Vu166Lcw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
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
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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
2.8 MALFORMED_FREEMAIL Bad headers on message from free email service
X-Headers-End: 1YGSjg-0003SP-81
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: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:32:53 -0000
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Nicolas DORIER wrote:
> I agree that the use protocol buffer and x509 by BIP70 is a poor choice.
Well x509 is an international standard in common use, you can't do much
better with regard to portability. Your suggestion about HTTPS makes
little sense, you do know what TLS uses x509 internally as well?
Re: protocol buffers, I don't know if it's the best possible one, but one
serialization method had to be picked. If it weren't, we could still have
still been discussing which one to use by now. Just like for JSON there
are bindings for many languages.
Though JSON parsers are much more diverse, which people using Bitcoin
Core's RPC have bumped into e.g. some have some problems
handling large numbers. Something you wouldn't expect using a
straightforward binary format. There's no obvious best choice.
Wladimir
|
