Re: [Bitcoin-development] Two Proposed BIPs - Bluetooth Communication and bitcoin: URI Scheme Improvements

2015-02-06 Thread Peter D. Gray
I think the Bitcoin community needs a good person-to-person payment protocol for BLE simply because Bluetooth LE is effectively peer-to-peer. Unlike NFC or conventional Bluetooth, a $5 micro can be either the master or slave and talk directly to other $5 micros nearby. [ASIDE... BLE is also the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Two Proposed BIPs - Bluetooth Communication and bitcoin: URI Scheme Improvements

2015-02-06 Thread Andreas Schildbach
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Two Proposed BIPs - Bluetooth Communication and bitcoin: URI Scheme Improvements

2015-02-06 Thread Eric Voskuil
On 02/06/2015 12:40 AM, Andreas Schildbach wrote: 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.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Two Proposed BIPs - Bluetooth Communication and bitcoin: URI Scheme Improvements

2015-02-06 Thread Mike Hearn
BLE meets a different use case than regular Bluetooth. BLE is designed to allow always-on broadcast beacons which are conceptually similar to NFC tags, with very low power requirements. The tradeoff for this ultra-low power consumption and always on nature is the same as with NFC tags: you get

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Two Proposed BIPs - Bluetooth Communication and bitcoin: URI Scheme Improvements

2015-02-05 Thread Andy Schroder
Hello, With the recent discussion started today regarding another bluetooth communication proposal created by Airbitz, I'd like to bring people's attention back to this proposal that saw little discussion last fall. I guess I'm not sure why two proposals are being created. Is their some

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Two Proposed BIPs - Bluetooth Communication and bitcoin: URI Scheme Improvements

2015-02-05 Thread Eric Voskuil
Hi Andy, This is good stuff. I've spent quite a bit of time on this question, but set aside most of it earlier in the year in order to make some progress in other areas. I did review what I found available at the time pertaining to the Schildbach implementation and these questions. Skimming the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Two Proposed BIPs - Bluetooth Communication and bitcoin: URI Scheme Improvements

2015-02-05 Thread Eric Voskuil
Agree, range is not an issue. The trade-off is in battery vs. total time, which would be influenced primarily by the battery sensitivity of the platform. I'll send you a note to follow up. e On 02/05/2015 05:40 PM, Andy Schroder wrote: Hello, I personally would prefer as low of range as

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Two Proposed BIPs - Bluetooth Communication and bitcoin: URI Scheme Improvements

2014-10-22 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/20/2014 12:50 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: One thing this brings up is the never-resolved issue of whether BIPs should document how we'd *like* things to work, or how things *actually do* work. BIP32 is an example of the former - it was new

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Two Proposed BIPs - Bluetooth Communication and bitcoin: URI Scheme Improvements

2014-10-20 Thread Mike Hearn
Hey Andy, Thanks for starting this discussion! One thing this brings up is the never-resolved issue of whether BIPs should document how we'd *like* things to work, or how things *actually do* work. BIP32 is an example of the former - it was new technology and the spec was finalised before any