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-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.
|
