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

Stefan Thomas moon at justmoon.de
Sat Mar 3 13:44:45 UTC 2012


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 at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120303/f86175ef/attachment.html>


More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list