Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC - BIP: URI scheme for Blockchain exploration

From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: Marco Pontello <marcopon@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC - BIP: URI scheme for Blockchain exploration
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:29:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoOMD0zujY+GGRrQ7HcZ9uBpk_diW+rB0wLzj61=qmt7w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE0pACK1Jp-GGZ84m-m8qNZXnOXvJfRXd+1SJk48wFYp02RX_Q@mail.gmail.com>

I can always link to the BIP when I reopen that commit as independent
instead of the other way around.
Btw, the PR needs rebase (probably the conflict is in the README).

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Marco Pontello <marcopon@gmail•com> wrote:
> OK, adding the relevant code fragment is probably the simplest and direct
> option. Done.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote:
>>
>> Not a native english speaker myself, so I may have missed some things...
>>
>> Yes, sorry about the link. I guess you can point to #6230 . I can
>> rebase it if needed but I would close it again because I don't want to
>> have too many things from #6382 opened at the same time (is noisy and
>> worse for review). My plan was to not open it independently at least
>> until after #6907 (and actually after 0.12 assuming #6907 gets in by
>> 0.12). But then I would maybe open a new one and reference the old one
>> rather than reopening #6230 (which tends to be confusing).
>> I'm not really sure what's the best answer here...but #6382 is
>> certainly going to need rebase and the link will be broken again.
>> Maybe one answer is to copy some text from #6230 or the commit and add
>> it directly to the BIP instead of referencing to that commit (which
>> will be, at least until #6907 is merged, a moving target).
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Marco Pontello <marcopon@gmail•com>
>> wrote:
>> > Thanks for the comments! Now I fixed the typos (hope to have got them
>> > all,
>> > English isn't my first language), clarified the chain part a bit, and
>> > fixed
>> > the link. There probably is a better way to reference that source code
>> > part
>> > with the genesis blocks hashs, in a way that doesn't need to be changed,
>> > maybe...
>> >
>> > Now the main change would be to put in a proper BIP number! :)
>> >
>> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for incorporating the feedback, specifically thank you for
>> >> using the genesis block hash as the unique chain ID.
>> >>
>> >> I wen't through the BIP draft and left a few of comments, but I really
>> >> like its simplicity and focus. Good work!
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Marco Pontello via bitcoin-dev
>> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >> > Hi!
>> >> >
>> >> > To anyone that followed the discussion (from some time ago) about the
>> >> > proposed new URI for Blockchain references / exploration, I just
>> >> > wanted
>> >> > to
>> >> > point out that I have collected the feedback provided, reworked the
>> >> > text,
>> >> > put the BIP on GitHub and created a pull request:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > https://github.com/MarcoPon/bips/blob/master/bip-MarcoPon-01.mediawiki
>> >> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/202
>> >> >
>> >> > The need for an URI for this come to mind again in the last days
>> >> > looking
>> >> > at
>> >> > Eternity Wall, which IMHO provide a use case that we will see more
>> >> > and
>> >> > more
>> >> > in the (near) future: http://eternitywall.it/
>> >> > Using that service, when you want to check for the proof that a
>> >> > specific
>> >> > message was written in the Blockchain, it let you choose from 5
>> >> > different
>> >> > explorer.
>> >> > Mycelium wallet recently added the option to select one of 15 block
>> >> > explorers.
>> >> > And there's the crypto_bot on reddit/r/bitcoin that detect reference
>> >> > to
>> >> > transaction an add a message with links to 7 different explorers.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think that's clearly something that's needed.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bye!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Marco Pontello <marcopon@gmail•com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi!
>> >> >> My first post here, hope I'm following the right conventions.
>> >> >> I had this humble idea for a while, so I thought to go ahead and
>> >> >> propose
>> >> >> it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BIP: XX
>> >> >> Title: URI scheme for Blockchain exploration
>> >> >> Author: Marco Pontello
>> >> >> Status: Draft
>> >> >> Type: Standards Track
>> >> >> Created: 29 August 2015
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Abstract
>> >> >> ========
>> >> >> This BIP propose a simple URI scheme for looking up blocks,
>> >> >> transactions,
>> >> >> addresses on a Blockchain explorer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Motivation
>> >> >> ==========
>> >> >> The purpose of this URI scheme is to enable users to handle all the
>> >> >> requests for details about blocks, transactions, etc. with their
>> >> >> preferred
>> >> >> tool (being that a web service or a local application).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Currently a Bitcoin client usually point to an arbitrary blockchain
>> >> >> explorer when the user look for the details of a transaction (es.
>> >> >> Bitcoin
>> >> >> Wallet use BitEasy, Mycelium or Electrum use Blockchain.info, etc.).
>> >> >> Other times resorting to cut&paste is needed.
>> >> >> The same happens with posts and messages that reference some
>> >> >> particular
>> >> >> txs or blocks, if they provide links at all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Specification
>> >> >> =============
>> >> >> The URI follow this simple form:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> blockchain: <hash/string>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Examples:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> blockchain:00000000000000001003e880d500968d51157f210c632e08a652af3576600198
>> >> >> blockchain:001949
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> blockchain:3b95a766d7a99b87188d6875c8484cb2b310b78459b7816d4dfc3f0f7e04281a
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Rationale
>> >> >> =========
>> >> >> I thought about using some more complex scheme, or adding qualifiers
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> distinguish blocks from txs, but in the end I think that keeping it
>> >> >> simple
>> >> >> should be practical enough. Blockchain explorers can apply the same
>> >> >> disambiguation rules they are already using to process the usual
>> >> >> search
>> >> >> box.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> From the point of view of a wallet developer (or other tool that
>> >> >> need
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> show any kind of Blockchain references), using this scheme mean that
>> >> >> he
>> >> >> can simply make it a blockchain: link and be done with it, without
>> >> >> having
>> >> >> to worry about any specific Blockchain explorer or provide a means
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> user to select one.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Blockchain explorers in turn will simply offer to handle the
>> >> >> blockchain:
>> >> >> URI, the first time the user visit their website, or launch/install
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> application, or even set themselves if there isn't already one.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Users get the convenience of using always their preferred explorer,
>> >> >> which
>> >> >> can be especially handy on mobile devices, where juggling with
>> >> >> cut&paste
>> >> >> is far from ideal.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Try the Online TrID File Identifier
>> >> > http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> >> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Try the Online TrID File Identifier
>> > http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx
>
>
>
>
> --
> Try the Online TrID File Identifier
> http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx