rich1.0npub18yq2ukhtlnkuzzykluyjvxap3vtvdqf0arvtag6rx02klk6gymgqp3txp2https://nostr.ae/npub18yq2ukhtlnkuzzykluyjvxap3vtvdqf0arvtag6rx02klk6gymgqp3txp2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2011-12-19 🗒️ Summary of this message: The author suggests that a simple plain text response of an address is sufficient for alias resolution, but worries about future compatibility issues. 📝 Original message:If alias resolution was guaranteed to always be just the address, then yes, I would opt for no serialization at all. A simple plain text response of an address is about as simple as it can get. There are already a lot of good ideas floating around about how the alias protocol could be extended. Is it really going to stay that simple for long? I would personally much just have a serialized response upfront, rather than having to worry about backward compatibility in the future. On 12/19/2011 10:17 AM, slush wrote: > In my opinion, there's not necessary any payload format (json, xml, > multipart). In keeping stuff KISS, everything we need is just an address > in response + potentially some stuff like HTTP redirects (for providing > additional compatibility for proposal of bitcoin URIs with "amount", > "label" and other parts). I don't see reason why we need some extra > payload yet.