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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <adam@cypherspace.org>) id 1WQxAZ-0002ao-KH
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:59:23 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.194])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WQxAY-0000FK-Bh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:59:23 +0000
Received: from netbook (c107-70.i07-27.onvol.net [92.251.107.70])
by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus3) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
id 0Ljr9d-1WyM2W1jSL-00bg0I; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:59:13 -0400
Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id B555B2E018E; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:59:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000);
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:59:06 +0100
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:59:06 +0100
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Message-ID: <20140321105906.GA1725@netbook.cypherspace.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>
<CAJHLa0N4J_Z907+D0ENSNKfNAW2N=7Jf4JzSCO=SU558GtGTzA@mail.gmail.com>
<lge7nk$3mf$2@ger.gmane.org>
<CANEZrP0J849oDvMWjf8LWi0xj44Q8DaUwDip5_smVBMNgeQ3mw@mail.gmail.com>
<20140320121221.GA25052@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<lgh438$tnn$1@ger.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <lgh438$tnn$1@ger.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140321:andreas@schildbach.de::KhMjWzwbG5W5jKmI:0000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000z6+
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140321:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::NkKZMYmO0c+Hr
rxl:000000000000000000002HSn
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140321:adam@cypherspace.org::yfa4X60t2WK9wVuv:00000000000000000
0000000000000000000000003hIP
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:f8sHCYbLGU+Rf6aPizRC8tb6O9DO3YvFTCN9cijdAVg
tvVGvwKGzsmGTCb90qjkUywRyan5WXnwpTNccQLBckX0Qb8/PM
luRee6xZG7cfxQDE0Y+gxM1Gktp5EgrSDyb4WA7tyf2v+3y/4r
NkKN5KXegUlqOI88hMh8qbL9eci/Z7b0TXCqo5ZqPCoSRGbFIe
Mss6c1dRnxcl4dIcj/OvjevItIrlfBuOgtpSPBbEJhz27/miGn
ZHKb+UlsF59gX54m80ab8qXkCo4TpjTJq57TSAfxl4nbM5MW2H
jupV5yUmRs2CkH3xZkU+O+p6jDmd2lPxAt8+9LiGn74apldLBD
aTyrtdddCjCJAY6TGhQt0a4QjEl5Hjgnx4Pkyixt0
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [74.208.4.194 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1WQxAY-0000FK-Bh
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: <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 10:59:23 -0000
Maybe its time to explore raw ECDSA signed message based certs.
btw I dont think its quite 4kB. eg bitpay's looks to be about 1.5kB in der
format. And they contain a 2048-bit RSA server key, and 2048-bit RSA
signatures (256byte each right there = 512bytes). And even 2048 is weaker
than 256-bit ECDSA.
Adam
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:25:59AM +0100, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
>On 03/20/2014 01:12 PM, Adam Back wrote:
>
>> Whats a sensible limit on practical/convenient QR code size?
>
>Technically 3 KB. In my experience codes above 1.5 KB become impossible
>to scan (ZXing scanner, 3 years ago). You will want to stay below 500
>bytes for convenient scanning. That said, I'm convinced there is a lot
>of room for scanning improvements.
>
>> How much of the payment protocol message size comes from use of x509?
>
>As said in the OP, a minimal PR uses 50 bytes. X.509 seems to put about
>4000 bytes on top of that.
>
>As you can see, we have quite some room for improvements to PR payload
>(PaymentDetails). X.509 certification will probably not be possible via
>QR, at least not until specialized CA's will issue space-efficient certs
>(using ECDSA?).
|
