From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YJeT3-0001pR-8k for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:40:49 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YJeT2-0007QW-5w for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:40:49 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YJeSv-0004PO-8K for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:40:41 +0100 Received: from f053001071.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.53.1.71]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:40:41 +0100 Received: from andreas by f053001071.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:40:41 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:40:35 +0100 Message-ID: References: <544174F8.1050208@AndySchroder.com> <54D3FEE9.70502@AndySchroder.com> <54D40C7D.8090804@voskuil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f053001071.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 In-Reply-To: <54D40C7D.8090804@voskuil.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1YJeT2-0007QW-5w Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Two Proposed BIPs - Bluetooth Communication and bitcoin: URI Scheme Improvements X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:40:49 -0000 On 02/06/2015 01:36 AM, Eric Voskuil wrote: > The main advantage of BLE over BT is that it uses much less power, with > a trade-off in lower bandwidth (100 kbps vs. 2 mbps). The BLE range can > be even greater and connection latency lower than BT. For payment > purposes the lower bandwidth isn't much of a hit. I'm all for extending the BT: scheme to Bluetooth LE. If you have ideas how this can be done please let us know. I haven't had a chance to play around with LE because none of my devices support it. I suspect the way how Bluetooth LE transfers files (like payment requests) is opening a plain old Bluetooth socket. If this is true, I'm afraid Bluetooth LE would not add anything for sending the BIP70 messages back and forth. Note signed payment requests can easily be 4 kB in size, so speed *does* matter.