* [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?
@ 2012-03-02 18:51 Amir Taaki
2012-03-02 19:14 ` Luke-Jr
2012-03-03 13:44 ` Stefan Thomas
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Amir Taaki @ 2012-03-02 18:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1261 bytes --]
Hi,
I got sent this BIP:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_DRAFT:_getmemorypool#JSON-RPC_Method:_getmemorypool
What is your opinion on this? Is it BIP related?
It is a implementation-specific non-bitcoin-protocol proposal. My understanding of BIPs is that
they apply across bitcoin implementations and largely focus on the most generic use-cases
(like the URIs) and the protocol. Things which affect all clients, and allow the system to function
as a united whole.
That BIPs especially focus on the protocol, and that something like this is outside the mandate
of the BIP process.
For instance, we could imagine a future scenario. Bitcoin-Qt is currently based off bitcoind's
codebase. However wumpus built the client in mind with an abstraction layer to enable multiple
backends (a good design). In our hypothetical situation, there are 3 different backend codebases
using Bitcoin-Qt. I do not think a proposal to mandate a changing to Bitcoin-Qt's abstraction
layer or a change in the UI placement would be appropriate BIP material.
OTOH, many clients do need to make use of URIs and the BIP process is totally correct, as it
standardises a behaviour which is needed for interoperability of the network and community.
Thoughts?
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1821 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?
2012-03-02 18:51 [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not? Amir Taaki
@ 2012-03-02 19:14 ` Luke-Jr
2012-03-03 13:44 ` Stefan Thomas
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Luke-Jr @ 2012-03-02 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development, Amir Taaki
On Friday, March 02, 2012 1:51:41 PM Amir Taaki wrote:
> It is a implementation-specific non-bitcoin-protocol proposal. My
> understanding of BIPs is that they apply across bitcoin implementations
> and largely focus on the most generic use-cases (like the URIs) and the
> protocol. Things which affect all clients, and allow the system to
> function as a united whole.
This isn't implementation-specific. If you read it, you should notice it is
intentionally generic for multiple use-cases. Right now bitcoind supports
getmemorypool for a few use cases, but this proposed BIP enables it to be
utilized for many more. Specifically, Eligius and at least a few other pools
wish to move toward a more decentralized method of pooled mining (similar to
the proprietary p2pool protocol). Eligius already supports miners producing
their own work with getmemorypool using this draft, and our Eloipool server is
open source (AGPL-3) for others to adopt (I know of at least one other pool
planning to do so). Other pools not using Eloipool also have expressed
interest in this, so a standard is desirable.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?
2012-03-02 18:51 [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not? Amir Taaki
2012-03-02 19:14 ` Luke-Jr
@ 2012-03-03 13:44 ` Stefan Thomas
2012-03-03 13:49 ` Luke-Jr
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Thomas @ 2012-03-03 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2737 bytes --]
Since several independent clients (I know at least libcoin
<https://github.com/ceptacle/libcoin/blob/master/src/coinHTTP/RequestHandler.cpp>
and BitcoinJS
<https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-server/tree/master/lib/rpc>) aim
to implement JSON-RPC APIs which are either a superset of the original
client's or have at least some compatible functions, I think you can
make a case for including JSON-RPC API calls within the domain of BIPs.
In this instance the BIP aims to create a common protocol between
different clients, miners, mining proxies and pools. That's a lot of
software, so standardization definitely seems like a good idea and I
can't think of a reason not to use the BIP process.
I have some comments on the content of the BIP, but since this thread is
more of a meta-discussion I'll wait until the BIP is officially proposed.
On 3/2/2012 7:51 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got sent this BIP:
>
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_DRAFT:_getmemorypool#JSON-RPC_Method:_getmemorypool
>
> What is your opinion on this? Is it BIP related?
>
> It is a implementation-specific non-bitcoin-protocol proposal. My
> understanding of BIPs is that
> they apply across bitcoin implementations and largely focus on the
> most generic use-cases
> (like the URIs) and the protocol. Things which affect all clients, and
> allow the system to function
> as a united whole.
>
> That BIPs especially focus on the protocol, and that something like
> this is outside the mandate
> of the BIP process.
>
> For instance, we could imagine a future scenario. Bitcoin-Qt is
> currently based off bitcoind's
> codebase. However wumpus built the client in mind with an abstraction
> layer to enable multiple
> backends (a good design). In our hypothetical situation, there are 3
> different backend codebases
> using Bitcoin-Qt. I do not think a proposal to mandate a changing to
> Bitcoin-Qt's abstraction
> layer or a change in the UI placement would be appropriate BIP material.
>
> OTOH, many clients do need to make use of URIs and the BIP process is
> totally correct, as it
> standardises a behaviour which is needed for interoperability of the
> network and community.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Virtualization& Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
> Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing
> also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4616 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?
2012-03-03 13:44 ` Stefan Thomas
@ 2012-03-03 13:49 ` Luke-Jr
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Luke-Jr @ 2012-03-03 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
On Saturday, March 03, 2012 8:44:45 AM Stefan Thomas wrote:
> I have some comments on the content of the BIP, but since this thread is
> more of a meta-discussion I'll wait until the BIP is officially proposed.
Please do comment on the content, in the original thread if you prefer:
Message-Id: <201202281706.22650.luke@dashjr•org>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:06:20 -0500
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-03-03 13:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-03-02 18:51 [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not? Amir Taaki
2012-03-02 19:14 ` Luke-Jr
2012-03-03 13:44 ` Stefan Thomas
2012-03-03 13:49 ` Luke-Jr
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox