<div dir="ltr">Hi all,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 9 April 2018 at 11:47, Corné Plooy via Lightning-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Is this really only about reducing the size of QR codes? How many<br>
percent reduction do you think you can accomplish with your approach? I<br>
think, when it comes to reducing QR code size, it makes more sense to<br>
think of a better way to encode the node ID. Hexadecimal isn't exactly<br>
the most space-efficient encoding.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We'd save 33 bytes by not using hex. Makes the QR code a bit rarer (whatever is opposite of dense). </div><div>I intend to support both approaches, if there are 33 bytes before the '@' it's raw, 66 it's hex.</div><div><br></div><div>Igor</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Op 07-04-18 om 17:17 schreef Robert Olsson:<br>
<div><div class="h5">> Hello all,<br>
><br>
> I seem to not find a bolt regarding the QR code of node@ip:port<br>
><br>
> It seems eclair only supports the format hex@ip:port format, and i<br>
> haven't tried any other mobile wallets.<br>
><br>
> I thought there would be support for bech32 nodeid:s to keep the QR<br>
> small, but it doesn't seem that way.<br>
><br>
> If it isn't standardized yet, i think we should do it soon so all<br>
> wallets will support it from start and we can avoid bulky QR codes.<br>
><br>
> To fully utilize QR it should work with charset in text-mode, so i<br>
> would suggest a format like<br>
><br>
> lightning:ln1bech32nodeid/<wbr>ipnumber/port<br>
><br>
> where /port is optional if port is 9735<br>
><br>
> this is to avoid @ and confusion of : in ipv6 and :portnumber<br>
> (skip '[' and ']' in ipv6)<br>
><br>
> another approach would be to encode ip and portnumber in bech32 as<br>
> well. my opinion is that everything coded entirely in bech32 shouldn't<br>
> need a protocol so the 'lightning:' part could possibly be omitted as<br>
> well.<br>
><br>
> or did i just miss a bolt somewhere?<br>
><br>
> best regards<br>
> Robert Olsson<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Lightning-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">Lightning-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>lightning-dev</a><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lightning-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">Lightning-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>lightning-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><b>Igor Cota</b><div>Codex Apertus Ltd<br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>