Re: [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?

[Luke-Jr]

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.l...@dashjr.org>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:06:20 -0500

--
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?

[Stefan Thomas]

Since several independent clients (I know at least libcoin 
 
and BitcoinJS 
) 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


--
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?

[Luke-Jr]

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.

--
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

[Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?

[Amir Taaki]

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