{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2011-12-19\n🗒️ Summary of this message: A developer suggests using HTTPS and requiring TLS/SSL for Bitcoin, while discussing the use of JSON-RPC and binary data in Bitcoin transactions.\n📝 Original message:On Monday, December 19, 2011 12:04:34 PM Jordan Mack wrote:\n\u003e I still think HTTPS should be used, at the minimum. Using HTTPS is\n\u003e standard to every website out there that deals with financials, even if\n\u003e it is not a perfect system. Why should Bitcoin adopt a more lax policy\n\u003e than everyone else?\n\nSure, I meant HTTP as the underlying protocol.\nTLS/SSL should of course be required in some form.\n\n\u003e I thought that JSON support was fairly common these days. I personally\n\u003e prefer XML in most cases, but since JSON is already used with the RPC,\n\u003e it seemed like a natural fit here. \n\nJSON-RPC won't go on forever. In any case, bitcoind's use of JSON-RPC is \nexactly why I (and many other developers) have come to the realization how \npoorly supported JSON really is. Most of the common languages do have a \nlibrary, but almost all of them have one issue or another (particularly around \nthe very undefined Number type).\n\nXML shares the same binary-data problem as JSON, too.\nAs slush mentioned, no additional serialization is necessary anyway.\n\n\u003e Binary data can be base64 encoded, although I'm not sure why you would need\n\u003e to send back binary in an alias response.\n\nBecause computers work with binary. I don't think anyone wants to implement a \nfully functional script assembler just to send funds.\n\n\u003e What exactly do you mean by \"custom output script\"?\n\nThis suggests you need to learn more about how Bitcoin works ;)\nhttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script"}