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
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80A2955
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk
[62.13.148.109])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB498E5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247])
by punt22.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5LMADYe096724;
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:10:13 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5LMA9Ts053061
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:10:10 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 861104010B;
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:08:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 9A58120217; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:10:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:10:08 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20160621221008.GB10196@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201606212044.38931.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WYTEVAkct0FjGQmd"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201606212044.38931.luke@dashjr.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: ec013c5d-37fc-11e6-bcde-0015176ca198
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAMUEkAaAgsB AmAbWVdeUV17WGI7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUQAUfG0I Yl0eVxpycQQIeX5w ZU4sCyNbXUcpcBJg
QUkCRnAHZDJmdTJM BBVFdwNVdQJNeEwU a1l3GhFYa3VsNCMk
FAgyOXU9MCtqYAlL TwdFKFUITA4TBDkk QAsPEX0FPHVNSjUv
Iho9K1kaBw4NNQ0Y EGNpAQpHa3c8
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:19 -0000
--WYTEVAkct0FjGQmd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 08:44:37PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2016 5:33:32 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > BIP 0070 has been a a moderate success, however, IMO:
> >=20
> > - protocol buffers are inappropriate since ease of use and extensibilit=
y is
> > desired over the minor gains of efficiency in this protocol. Not too l=
ate
> > to support JSON messages as the standard going forward
>=20
> IMO JSON is too prone to gratuitous inefficiency (both at network and CPU=
=20
> level), parser bugs, etc. Even the best C implementation (jansson) has se=
rious=20
> issues with Number handling.
>=20
> A few years ago, I looked into binary alternatives to JSON and concluded =
they=20
> all had problems, while it seems more than reasonable to do even dynamic=
=20
> parsing of protobuf messages. So to conclude, I prefer to stick to protob=
uf=20
> unless a clearly superior protocol turns up.
I'll second that statement.
Ease of use isn't a very good criteria for security-critical software handl=
ing
money, and the JSON standard has a very large amount of degrees of freedom =
in
how people have implemented it historically. Even protobuf I'd personally a=
void
using on that basis, as protobuf encoding isn't deterministic: you can enco=
de
the same data in multiple ways.
Unfortunately there isn't a viable alternative, so we're probably stuck with
protobuf right now for standards that want to see wide adoption in the near
future; I've got a few projects that need an alternative, which I'm working=
on,
but that's a ways off.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--WYTEVAkct0FjGQmd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXabs9AAoJEGOZARBE6K+yzgYH+wcC2Yo+3HCrqLtUyCQGqdrR
ar2cqsQbRC11y9v6Z6xgk6lds6iWioEdLqSAYhZiMqFTqSHMj93yobsG+UNdfFgo
/ZZkpN9ZYcSNbG8K1GT1WTJgHmTJUXyeQeba1/QQEd54JbGRdKjPMw0cGRlY0pmY
mlQKLFlcJFvgNbJLoWM01lvbQyn0ZnZtTJfmE4/W2Wc7njDwKs9RHwD0qX1vYSnA
PzqdvC1hnSD85ZYi4sVLlUmg3ynD9HOxoRk4FAk9TNjeL2GVF/OLpU41f1eFamFV
f8AklVtpeou/j9KbeO09Xz77xC83ElZPbjjKtAdsAxEg9M26J2FO58DN4q4y51I=
=+xwv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--WYTEVAkct0FjGQmd--
|
