{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-06-21\n📝 Original message:Protobuf vs. JSON was a deliberate decision. Afaik Protobuf was chosen\nbecause of its strong types, less vulnerability to malleability and very\ngood platform support. Having coded both, I can say Protobuf is not more\ndifficult than JSON. (Actually the entire Bitcoin P2P protocol should be\nbased on Protobuf, but that's another story.)\n\nYes, all extensions to BIP70 should go into new BIPs. Note the plural\nhere: if you have orthogonal ideas I strongly suggest one BIP per idea\nso they can be discussed and implemented (or rejected) separately.\n\n\nOn 06/20/2016 07:33 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e BIP 0070 has been a a moderate success, however, IMO:\n\u003e \n\u003e - protocol buffers are inappropriate since ease of use and extensibility\n\u003e is desired over the minor gains of efficiency in this protocol.  Not too\n\u003e late to support JSON messages as the standard going forward\n\u003e \n\u003e - problematic reliance on merchant-supplied https (X509) as the sole\n\u003e form of mechant identification.   alternate schemes (dnssec/netki), pgp\n\u003e and possibly keybase seem like good ideas.   personally, i like keybase,\n\u003e since there is no reliance on the existing domain-name system (you can\n\u003e sell with a github id, for example)\n\u003e \n\u003e - missing an optional client supplied identification\n\u003e \n\u003e - lack of basic subscription support\n\u003e \n\u003e /Proposed for subscriptions:/\n\u003e \n\u003e - BIP0047 payment codes are recommended instead of wallet addresses when\n\u003e establishing subscriptions.  Or, merchants can specify replacement\n\u003e addresses in ACK/NACK responses.   UI confirms are /required /when there\n\u003e are no replacement addresses or payment codes used.\n\u003e \n\u003e - Wallets must confirm and store subscriptions, and are responsible for\n\u003e initiating them at the specified interval.  \n\u003e \n\u003e - Intervals can /only /be from a preset list: weekly, biweekly, or 1,\n\u003e 2,3,4,6 or 12 months.   Intervals missed by more than 3 days cause\n\u003e suspension until the user re-verifies.\n\u003e \n\u003e - Wallets /may /optionally ask the user whether they want to be notified\n\u003e and confirm every interval - or not.   Wallets that do not ask /must\n\u003e /notify before initiating each payment.   Interval confirmations should\n\u003e begin at /least /1 day in advance of the next payment.\n\u003e \n\u003e /Proposed in general:\n\u003e /\n\u003e - JSON should be used instead of protocol buffers going forward.  Easier\n\u003e to use, explain extend.\n\u003e \n\u003e - \"Extendible\" URI-like scheme to support multi-mode identity mechanisms\n\u003e on both payment and subscription requests.   Support for keybase://,\n\u003e netki:// and others as alternates to https://. \n\u003e \n\u003e - Support for client as well as merchant multi-mode verification\n\u003e \n\u003e - Ideally, the identity verification URI scheme is somewhat\n\u003e orthogonal/independent of the payment request itself\n\u003e \n\u003e Question:\n\u003e \n\u003e Should this be a new BIP?  I know netki's BIP75 is out there - but I\n\u003e think it's too specific and too reliant on the domain name system.\n\u003e \n\u003e Maybe an identity-protocol-agnostic BIP + solid implementation of a\n\u003e couple major protocols without any mention of payment URI's ... just a\n\u003e way of sending and receiving identity verified messages in general?\n\u003e \n\u003e I would be happy to implement plugins for identity protocols, if anyone\n\u003e thinks this is a good idea.\n\u003e \n\u003e Does anyone think https:// or keybase, or PGP or netki all by\n\u003e themselves, is enough - or is it always better to have an extensible\n\u003e protocol?\n\u003e \n\u003e - Erik Aronesty\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e"}