[Lightning-dev] QR of node information
corne at bitonic.nl
Mon Apr 9 09:47:51 UTC 2018
Why put everything in bech32? It hurts readability. The only possible
advantage is that data inside the bech32 blob can be digitally signed in
a convenient way. If you don't need that, I'd keep your data ourside the
bech32 blob, in a (expert-)human-readable format.
Why not follow a regular URL format when host and port are involved? I
don't see the advantage of lightning:ln1bech32nodeid/ipnumber/port over
node at ip:port. In practice, I see both C-Lightning and LND also using
node at ip:port, BTW.
Is this really only about reducing the size of QR codes? How many
percent reduction do you think you can accomplish with your approach? I
think, when it comes to reducing QR code size, it makes more sense to
think of a better way to encode the node ID. Hexadecimal isn't exactly
the most space-efficient encoding.
Op 07-04-18 om 17:17 schreef Robert Olsson:
> Hello all,
> I seem to not find a bolt regarding the QR code of node at ip:port
> It seems eclair only supports the format hex at ip:port format, and i
> haven't tried any other mobile wallets.
> I thought there would be support for bech32 nodeid:s to keep the QR
> small, but it doesn't seem that way.
> If it isn't standardized yet, i think we should do it soon so all
> wallets will support it from start and we can avoid bulky QR codes.
> To fully utilize QR it should work with charset in text-mode, so i
> would suggest a format like
> where /port is optional if port is 9735
> this is to avoid @ and confusion of : in ipv6 and :portnumber
> (skip '[' and ']' in ipv6)
> another approach would be to encode ip and portnumber in bech32 as
> well. my opinion is that everything coded entirely in bech32 shouldn't
> need a protocol so the 'lightning:' part could possibly be omitted as
> or did i just miss a bolt somewhere?
> best regards
> Robert Olsson
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
More information about the Lightning-dev