Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29 📝 Original message:On 03/21/2017 08:14 PM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29
📝 Original message:On 03/21/2017 08:14 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 05:16:30PM +0100, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Why use Base 32 when the QR code alphanumeric mode allows 44 characters?
>> In Bitcoin Wallet, I use Base 43 (alphabet:
>> "0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ$*+-./:") for most efficient QR
>> code encoding. I only leave out the space character because it gets
>> replaced by "+" in URLs.
>
> Doing that only makes addresses a few % shorter, at the cost of significant
> downsides. For example, not everyone knows what those additional characters
> are called, particularly for non-English-speaking users. Non-alphanumeric
> characters also complicate using the addresses in a variety of contexts ('/'
> in particularly isn't valid in filenames).
I'm not convinced that transmitting addresses via voice should be a
usecase to target at. I don't understand your comment about non-english
speaking users. Obviously they cannot voice-communicate at all with
only-english-speaking users, so there is no need to communicate
voice-communicate addresses between them.
Addresses in QR codes, addresses in URLs and addresses in NFC NDEF
messages are the three most used forms.
Speaking of URLs, actually Base 32 (as well as Base 43) makes QR codes
*bigger* because due to the characters used for URL parameters (?&=)
those QR codes are locked to binary mode. To make them shorter, we'd
need to use something like "Base 64url" (or ideally Base 94 -- all
printable ASCII characters).
Published at
2023-06-07 17:57:37Event JSON
{
"id": "85d13c0e9513d4bb8dffb9612794574fcae90ca360b22fad7983f98f6844a694",
"pubkey": "3215b3d77dff1f84eeb5ad46fb1206a8d1657b3ea765a80b5489ece3a702d2bc",
"created_at": 1686160657,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c4c315d57ef0bbc44febb3cb8739d39737febe1a7b0c083c3f5926e5e2e897d8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5178db876ad8b0001b2bdcb12b0811ac1f248f637c6ee823987a01c722ce5e04",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29\n📝 Original message:On 03/21/2017 08:14 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 05:16:30PM +0100, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Why use Base 32 when the QR code alphanumeric mode allows 44 characters?\n\u003e\u003e In Bitcoin Wallet, I use Base 43 (alphabet:\n\u003e\u003e \"0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ$*+-./:\") for most efficient QR\n\u003e\u003e code encoding. I only leave out the space character because it gets\n\u003e\u003e replaced by \"+\" in URLs.\n\u003e \n\u003e Doing that only makes addresses a few % shorter, at the cost of significant\n\u003e downsides. For example, not everyone knows what those additional characters\n\u003e are called, particularly for non-English-speaking users. Non-alphanumeric\n\u003e characters also complicate using the addresses in a variety of contexts ('/'\n\u003e in particularly isn't valid in filenames).\n\nI'm not convinced that transmitting addresses via voice should be a\nusecase to target at. I don't understand your comment about non-english\nspeaking users. Obviously they cannot voice-communicate at all with\nonly-english-speaking users, so there is no need to communicate\nvoice-communicate addresses between them.\n\nAddresses in QR codes, addresses in URLs and addresses in NFC NDEF\nmessages are the three most used forms.\n\nSpeaking of URLs, actually Base 32 (as well as Base 43) makes QR codes\n*bigger* because due to the characters used for URL parameters (?\u0026=)\nthose QR codes are locked to binary mode. To make them shorter, we'd\nneed to use something like \"Base 64url\" (or ideally Base 94 -- all\nprintable ASCII characters).",
"sig": "dcac9ab8a46d6f30677f93acc5f6d0254f3c897e42783c768a181a03933ce0580bac87b0b6e119f706d3e962f92bbb3d7858498c81581a16e274370338e07d17"
}