Alex Kotenko [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-03-21 📝 Original message:2014-03-21 9:47 GMT+00:00 ...

📅 Original date posted:2014-03-21
📝 Original message:2014-03-21 9:47 GMT+00:00 Andreas Schildbach <andreas at schildbach.de>:

> 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.
>
​It will need to be ​escaped, but HTTP URLs used in BIP72 have it already,
so don't see why we should bother.



> > 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.
>
​It definitely is an overkill. Don't think we should do it now unless we
will see later during implementation that we really have to.



> > 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.

Ok. Btw, I've tested ​QR possibilities on my PoS screen, in binary mode
it's limited to about 600 chars, so really I can include only unsigned and
rather short payment request. Signed requests longer than few hundred bytes
will not work.



> > ​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.
>
Ok, so base43-aphanum is winning about a quarter of capacity against
base64-binary. I probably will skip this anyway and go with bluetooth URI
scheme we've just agreed + old style payments over p2p network as fallback.
So no payment requests in QR codes at all from my side.




>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
> "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
> applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
> this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140321/e73d4f4a/attachment.html>;