Author: Eric Voskuil 2015-03-03 00:54:18
Published on: 2015-03-03T00:54:18+00:00
The discussion is about rationalizing the bitcoin URI space. Andreas Schildbach and Mike Hearn agree with Eric Voskuil's comment that fallback addresses are less appealing as there could be a potential lack of a correlating address. They suggest adding their own parameter, which would waste space during the transition period but make no difference after that. The issue is more significant when it comes to Near Field Communication (NFC). The approach has merit in a scenario where the bitcoin URI is read from a QR code and BT is available. Eric suggests rationalizing the two approaches after the bitcoin URI has been read from either NFC or QR. In the QR scenario, the wallet can obtain a verifiable public key from the BT terminal, while in the NFC scenario the public key is just passed in the URI. Making the public key a requirement when used with NFC would simplify wallet development for NFC-only wallets. However, if a wallet supported both NFC and QR scanning, it wouldn't make much difference. Eric suggests specifying limits on each as in the first example.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T17:51:32.963379+00:00