Author: Mike Hearn 2014-01-27 13:11:40
Published on: 2014-01-27T13:11:40+00:00
The conversation is about the use of Bluetooth for scan-to-pay in the signed case. The current approach with a BTMAC parameter in the Bitcoin URI seems to work universally across NFC tags and QR codes, allowing download of a signed PaymentRequest even if a QR code is used. Signed payment requests are "large" because they can be verified offline, i.e., by a Trezor. The signed payment request contains all the data needed to establish its authenticity, including certificates and the signature itself. For face-to-face payments, signing is still useful, as it keeps the distinction between "merchant" and "user" blurred and indistinct, preventing exclusion from being secure with Trezor-like devices. Additionally, even without a Trezor, one would still like a receipt when buying something from a local market trader. There is potential for using payment protocol URLs for links published on web pages as well, which might provide a nice replacement for the BIP72 specification once the payment protocol is widely deployed. Other wallets won't know what to do with the "bitcoin:" URL scheme. If apps don't want to use the current r= extension, it's better for them to register to handle ".bitcoinpaymentrequest" files/the right MIME type. Without the magic header, a normal generic barcode scanner app would open a web page containing a bitcoin URI clickable link.
Updated on: 2023-06-08T01:11:55.905418+00:00