From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80A2955 for ; 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 ; 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 To: Luke Dashjr , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20160621221008.GB10196@fedora-21-dvm> References: <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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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--