{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-06-21\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Protobuf vs. JSON was a deliberate decision. Afaik Protobuf was chosen\n\u003e because of its strong types, less vulnerability to malleability and very\n\u003e good platform support. Having coded both, I can say Protobuf is not more\n\u003e difficult than JSON. (Actually the entire Bitcoin P2P protocol should be\n\u003e based on Protobuf, but that's another story.)\n\u003e\n\nI like protobuf, personally, for C++ stuff.  I just imagined it would be\nharder on mobile, or in some languages, to implement.   I'll focus on the\nscheduling issue.  Really, that's the only thing I want hashed out.\n\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes, all extensions to BIP70 should go into new BIPs. Note the plural\n\u003e here: if you have orthogonal ideas I strongly suggest one BIP per idea\n\u003e so they can be discussed and implemented (or rejected) separately.\n\u003e\n\u003e\nI think the intervals should *not* be flexible, even at the protocol level,\nto prevent attacks designed to confuse users  - plus for shorter intervals,\nyou need payment channels anyway.  Also, I think the spec should be rigid\nwith respect to response times, retry periods, etc.... to encourage\nconsistency among wallet vendors.   Not sure how anyone else feels about\nthat.  I suspect the netki guys should have opinions, since they are\nworking on similar UI-stuff.\n\nShould UI standards go somewhere else - not in a BIP?  I do think there\nneed to be UI standards.  Something with RFC-style should/must/will/wont\nlanguage, like \"Wallet software *must* show unconfirmed transactions as\ndistinct from confirmed\", and \"Wallet software *should *show some visual\nindication of other levels of confirmation\" ....  stuff like that.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160621/3d77b01a/attachment.html\u003e"}