> On Aug 17, 2016, at 15:24, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev > <[email protected]> wrote: > > URI scheme instead of stdio/pipe > -------------------------------- > The URI scheme is not ugly. Its a modern way – implemented in almost all > platforms – how applications can interact with each other while not > directly knowing each other. Registering a URI scheme like "bitcoin://" > has some concrete advantages over just piping through stdio. > > Also, the stdio/piping approach does not work for mobile platforms > (where the URI scheme works). > > The URI scheme does not require any sorts of wallet app level > configuration (where the stdio/pipe approach would require to configure > some details about the used hardware wallet).
Hi everybody, just thought I’d throw my opinion in here. The URI scheme is a nice idea, but this ignores the fact that hardware wallet vendors do most of the work on talking between the computer/mobile and the wallet on a lower level of communication. In the case of BitLox, the base protocol is Google’s ProtoBuf. The commands and transaction data is in a “schema” which is then encoded in different methods accessible via ProtoBuf (depending on the data being sent). The advantages of this protocol is that it can be implemented on a wide variety of platforms. (but that’s a whole 'nother discussion) The URI would be handled waaaaay up in the specific application (such as the mytrezor wallet software or the various standalone wallets) - nowhere near the actual hardware communications layer. Best regards, Dana BitLox
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
