{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-06-21\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 08:44:37PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Monday, June 20, 2016 5:33:32 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e BIP 0070 has been a a moderate success, however, IMO:\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e - protocol buffers are inappropriate since ease of use and extensibility is\n\u003e \u003e desired over the minor gains of efficiency in this protocol.  Not too late\n\u003e \u003e to support JSON messages as the standard going forward\n\u003e \n\u003e IMO JSON is too prone to gratuitous inefficiency (both at network and CPU \n\u003e level), parser bugs, etc. Even the best C implementation (jansson) has serious \n\u003e issues with Number handling.\n\u003e \n\u003e A few years ago, I looked into binary alternatives to JSON and concluded they \n\u003e all had problems, while it seems more than reasonable to do even dynamic \n\u003e parsing of protobuf messages. So to conclude, I prefer to stick to protobuf \n\u003e unless a clearly superior protocol turns up.\n\nI'll second that statement.\n\nEase of use isn't a very good criteria for security-critical software handling\nmoney, and the JSON standard has a very large amount of degrees of freedom in\nhow people have implemented it historically. Even protobuf I'd personally avoid\nusing on that basis, as protobuf encoding isn't deterministic: you can encode\nthe same data in multiple ways.\n\nUnfortunately there isn't a viable alternative, so we're probably stuck with\nprotobuf right now for standards that want to see wide adoption in the near\nfuture; I've got a few projects that need an alternative, which I'm working on,\nbut that's a ways off.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 455 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160621/ab86e67e/attachment.sig\u003e"}