1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jeremy@taplink.co>) id 1W7qlR-000573-Hs
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:18:29 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of taplink.co
designates 50.117.27.232 as permitted sender)
client-ip=50.117.27.232; envelope-from=jeremy@taplink.co;
helo=mail.taplink.co;
Received: from mail.taplink.co ([50.117.27.232])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1W7qlQ-0000DK-Kr for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:18:29 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.108] ([76.21.80.109]) by mail.taplink.co ;
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:32:53 -0800
References: <lc5hmg$1jh$1@ger.gmane.org> <op.xacvcukvyldrnw@laptop-air>
<lc65ks$2tr$1@ger.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <lc65ks$2tr$1@ger.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D6120A9C-C7E4-4447-8BBA-1496775A5231@taplink.co>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B146)
From: Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@taplink.co>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:18:16 -0800
To: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
oclient: 76.21.80.109#jeremy@taplink.co#465
X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1W7qlQ-0000DK-Kr
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:18:29 -0000
On Jan 27, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> wrot=
e:
> On 01/27/2014 06:11 PM, Jeremy Spilman wrote:
>=20
>>> SCAN TO PAY
>>> For scan-to-pay, the current landscape looks different. I assume at
>>> least 50% of Bitcoin transactions are initiated by a BIP21 URL encoded
>>> into a QR-code. Nevertheless, I tried to encode a payment request into
>>> the bitcoin URL. I used my existing work on encoding transactions into
>>> QR-codes. Steps to encode:
>>=20
>> Really interesting work. When using scan-to-pay, after the payer scans th=
e =20
>> QR code with the protobuf PaymentRequest (not a URL to download the =20
>> PaymentRequest) are they using their own connectivity to submit the =20
>> Payment response?
>>=20
>> How about putting a Bluetooth address in the payment_url inside the
>> PaymentDetails message for the smartphone to send back the Payment
>> response and get PaymentAck?
>=20
> That's exactly what I have prototyped. I am putting a Bluetooth MAC
> address into the payment_url. Have a look at the TAP TO PAY paragraph
> for details, its mostly the same mechanism.
>=20
Same mechanism for both, of course. Sorry, that was obvious. :)=
|
