From corne at bitonic.nl Mon Apr 9 09:47:51 2018 From: corne at bitonic.nl (=?UTF-8?Q?Corn=c3=a9_Plooy?=) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:47:51 +0200 Subject: [Lightning-dev] QR of node information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03d3d021-326a-c918-7d77-7cd82f4bc4c8@bitonic.nl> Why put everything in bech32? It hurts readability. The only possible advantage is that data inside the bech32 blob can be digitally signed in a convenient way. If you don't need that, I'd keep your data ourside the bech32 blob, in a (expert-)human-readable format. Why not follow a regular URL format when host and port are involved? I don't see the advantage of lightning:ln1bech32nodeid/ipnumber/port over node at ip:port. In practice, I see both C-Lightning and LND also using node at ip:port, BTW. Is this really only about reducing the size of QR codes? How many percent reduction do you think you can accomplish with your approach? I think, when it comes to reducing QR code size, it makes more sense to think of a better way to encode the node ID. Hexadecimal isn't exactly the most space-efficient encoding. CJP Op 07-04-18 om 17:17 schreef Robert Olsson: > Hello all, > > I seem to not find a bolt regarding the QR code of node at ip:port > > It seems eclair only supports the format hex at ip:port format, and i > haven't tried any other mobile wallets. > > I thought there would be support for bech32 nodeid:s to keep the QR > small, but it doesn't seem that way. > > If it isn't standardized yet, i think we should do it soon so all > wallets will support it from start and we can avoid bulky QR codes. > > To fully utilize QR it should work with charset in text-mode, so i > would suggest a format like > > lightning:ln1bech32nodeid/ipnumber/port > > where /port is optional if port is 9735 > > this is to avoid @ and confusion of : in ipv6 and :portnumber > (skip '[' and ']' in ipv6) > > another approach would be to encode ip and portnumber in bech32 as > well. my opinion is that everything coded entirely in bech32 shouldn't > need a protocol so the 'lightning:' part could possibly be omitted as > well. > > or did i just miss a bolt somewhere? > > best regards > Robert Olsson > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev