Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments

[Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1849 bytes --]

SPDY requires SSL and is even more complex than HTTP.

Really, the current protocol we've got (length prefixed protobufs) is just
fine except for the lack of encryption/authentication. For that you need to
do ECDH to establish a shared AES session key, and MAC each packet. Like I
said, it's not entirely trivial which is why it's worth trying SSL too, but
it's also not a massive effort.


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andreas Schildbach
<andreas@schildbach.de>wrote:

> On 03/21/2014 02:54 PM, Alex Kotenko wrote:
>
> >     > 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.
> >
> > ​It definitely is an overkill. Don't think we should do it now unless we
> > will see later during implementation that we really have to.
>
> Btw. we could also consider SPDY. I'm not sure about the advantages, but
> its probably quicker and leaner.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
> "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
> applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
> this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2587 bytes --]