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
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
id 1WQw2t-00073f-5f for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:47:23 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org
designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)
client-ip=80.91.229.3;
envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org;
helo=plane.gmane.org;
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WQw2r-00063t-C7
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:47:23 +0000
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
id 1WQw2k-0000un-DM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:47:14 +0100
Received: from e179064016.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.179.64.16])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:47:14 +0100
Received: from andreas by e179064016.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1
(Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:47:14 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:47:03 +0100
Message-ID: <lgh1q8$1dc$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <lc5hmg$1jh$1@ger.gmane.org>
<leuunm$tjk$1@ger.gmane.org> <CANEZrP3nQfvDArKTRgje0Cus4G2JD_zpxSjA3fXfxM2TNAP80Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALDj+BafD+6KTNcYDBEu5gNPzYozSkiC-JCxrY-PzXL2DYBRsw@mail.gmail.com> <lge7lv$3mf$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CALDj+BZRsXnU5w=1B+01PDfMPY-7zqU3GP_52vr9wknEdTJ59Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: e179064016.adsl.alicedsl.de
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
In-Reply-To: <CALDj+BZRsXnU5w=1B+01PDfMPY-7zqU3GP_52vr9wknEdTJ59Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/)
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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature,
domain signs all mail
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1WQw2r-00063t-C7
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: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:47:23 -0000
On 03/20/2014 05:14 PM, Alex Kotenko wrote:
> Hmm, if we're inventing an URI for bluetooth, I'd rather follow existing
> URI's patterns. BT is strictly point-to-point connection, so BT MAC
> should be considered as server address, and payment request ID can be
> considered as request path. Probably "bt:<bt-mac>/
> <random_id_of_payment_request>" would be more usual and easily
> understandable.
Agreed. I used the dash because I feared a slash would need to be
escaped if used in an URL parameter.
> I wonder how complex it would be to implement HTTP-over-Bluetooth. Not
> like I'm willing to do that now, but HTTP is well known and proven to be
> quite good for tasks like this, so in theory it would be handy to have
> such capacities in here.
Thought of that as well. On the other hand, HTTP might be overkill and
we inherit its potential downsides as well.
> Well, do we need to be compatible? If the dev community decides Base43
> PR QR's (or whatever other self-contained format) is the way to go, we
> just implement, roll it out and use it.
>
> My PoS needs to be compatible with BIP21, as when I'm presenting QR code
> or sending NFC message - I have no way to tell what wallet/phone is on
> the accepting side, so I have to be compatible to existing widely
> supported technologies.
Agreed. All I wanted to say support for QR is still small enough that we
might be able to switch to an incompatible standard. If we're determined
that is.
> Well, yes, it would be less efficient than base43. But did you
> calculate how much less? It's a compatible and already widely used way
> and loosing compatibility needs to have serious reasons, so would be
> great to know exact figures here.
Base 64 via binary QR: 64 chars / 256 chars
==> 6 bit / 8 bit = 0.75
Base 43 via alphanum QR: 43 chars / 45 chars
==> 5.43 bit / 5.49 bit = 0.99
That would be efficiency in terms of PR data size vs. amount space used
in a QR code. Of course, the visual QR encoding also plays a role, for
example its size is increased in discrete steps.
|
