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 ) 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: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B146) From: Jeremy Spilman Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:18:16 -0800 To: Andreas Schildbach 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" 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:18:29 -0000 On Jan 27, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Andreas Schildbach 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. :)=