Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> We've been using Protocol buffers in Trezor since the beginning and so > far it has proven to be as a great choice. > > While I agree it is always risky to add an exotic dependency to a > software project, this one has lots of interoperable implementations in > all possible languages you can name and it's very easy to work with. > > In the past, the Bitcoin dev community used the same arguments with > regards to PSBT and we ended up with something that is almost as complex > as protobuf, but it's de-facto proprietary to Bitcoin. > > Cherry on top is that PSBT format can be easily translated back and > forth to PB making it even more obvious that PB should have been used in > the first place. One argument against Protobuf is that people are already moving away from it in favor of FlatBuffers, Google's successor to Protobuf that doesn't require serialization/deserialization of structures. Do we really want to be chasing the latest serialization library fad each time a new one comes out? I do think there is value in having accessible serialization formats, which is why I think it's a good idea to provide custom format to protobuf conversion tools. This way users who prefer not to include large dependencies don't have to, and protobuf users can just do an extra step to convert it into their preferred format. Cheers, Will -- https://jb55.com _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
