rich1.0npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrshttps://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2011-12-19 🗒️ 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. 📝 Original message:On Monday, December 19, 2011 12:04:34 PM Jordan Mack wrote: > I still think HTTPS should be used, at the minimum. Using HTTPS is > standard to every website out there that deals with financials, even if > it is not a perfect system. Why should Bitcoin adopt a more lax policy > than everyone else? Sure, I meant HTTP as the underlying protocol. TLS/SSL should of course be required in some form. > I thought that JSON support was fairly common these days. I personally > prefer XML in most cases, but since JSON is already used with the RPC, > it seemed like a natural fit here. JSON-RPC won't go on forever. In any case, bitcoind's use of JSON-RPC is exactly why I (and many other developers) have come to the realization how poorly supported JSON really is. Most of the common languages do have a library, but almost all of them have one issue or another (particularly around the very undefined Number type). XML shares the same binary-data problem as JSON, too. As slush mentioned, no additional serialization is necessary anyway. > Binary data can be base64 encoded, although I'm not sure why you would need > to send back binary in an alias response. Because computers work with binary. I don't think anyone wants to implement a fully functional script assembler just to send funds. > What exactly do you mean by "custom output script"? This suggests you need to learn more about how Bitcoin works ;) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script