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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YPhXG-0007XL-Cv for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:10:10 +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 1YPhXF-0000BD-2b for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:10:10 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YPhX8-0002zH-LI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 02:10:02 +0100 Received: from f052012129.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.52.12.129]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 02:10:02 +0100 Received: from andreas by f052012129.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 02:10:02 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 02:05:31 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20150222190839.GA18527@odo.localdomain> <54EA5AAE.3040306@voskuil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f052012129.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 In-Reply-To: <54EA5AAE.3040306@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: 1YPhXF-0000BD-2b Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin at POS using BIP70, NFC and offline payments - implementer feedback 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: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:10:10 -0000 On 02/22/2015 11:39 PM, Eric Voskuil wrote: > The MAC address (and resource name) should be encoded using base58. This > is shorter than base16, is often shorter than base64, better > standardized and does not require URI encoding, and is generally > available to implementers. Of course this is just a minor detail, but Base64Url is well defined, almost always more efficient than Base58 and never less efficient, and implemented in way more libraries and OSes than Base58. Base58 was designed for copy-typing by humans.