Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-03-21 📝 Original message:On 03/20/2014 05:14 PM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-03-21
📝 Original message: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.
📝 Original message: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.