They were probably expecting base64 encoded binary data. Base64-encoded-binary-inside-Base64-encoded-JSON-inside-JSON is a really strange construction if you haven't encountered it before, because of how much space it's wasting playing a game of Russian nesting dolls.

▲

fc417fc802 7 days ago | parent [-]

Just add a layer of compression periodically to reclaim the wasted space and it will all work out.

▲

throwaway4496 6 days ago | parent [-]

If you have a compression that works on encrypted data, you can avoid wasting your time on the "encryption".

▲

fc417fc802 6 days ago | parent [-]

Base64 isn't encryption. The overhead added follows an extremely predictable pattern. That said I've no idea what the performance of common compression algorithms might be in such a use case. The comment was entirely tongue in cheek.

	▲	throwaway4496 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I apologise for my mistake. Either the comment got edited or I misread encryption somewhere in there.