{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub18yq2ukhtlnkuzzykluyjvxap3vtvdqf0arvtag6rx02klk6gymgqp3txp2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub18yq2ukhtlnkuzzykluyjvxap3vtvdqf0arvtag6rx02klk6gymgqp3txp2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2011-12-19\n🗒️ Summary of this message: HTTPS should be used for Bitcoin websites dealing with financials. JSON support is common, but it cannot represent binary data. Custom output script needs clarification.\n📝 Original message:I still think HTTPS should be used, at the minimum. Using HTTPS is \nstandard to every website out there that deals with financials, even if \nit is not a perfect system. Why should Bitcoin adopt a more lax policy \nthan everyone else?\n\nI thought that JSON support was fairly common these days. I personally \nprefer XML in most cases, but since JSON is already used with the RPC, \nit seemed like a natural fit here. Binary data can be base64 encoded, \nalthough I'm not sure why you would need to send back binary in an alias \nresponse.\n\nWhat exactly do you mean by \"custom output script\"?\n\n\nOn 12/19/2011 8:30 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e I'd prefer we stick to simple standards.\n\u003e HTTP alone should really be fine to build on...\n\u003e\n\u003e JSON in particular has very poor language support, and cannot reasonably\n\u003e represent binary data (such as a custom output script). The HTTP\n\u003e specification, however, allows binary data in multipart content just fine."}