{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-09-12\n📝 Original message:A few thoughts on this:\n\n(1) Base64 of SHA256 seems overkill. 256 bits of hash is a lot. The risk\nhere is that a MITM intercepts the payment request, which will be typically\nrequested just seconds after the QR code is vended. 80 bits of entropy\nwould still be a lot and take a long time to brute force, whilst keeping QR\ncodes more compact, which impacts scannability.\n\n(2) This should *not* be necessary in the common HTTPS context. The QR code\nitself is going to be fetched from some service, over HTTPS. I see no\nreasonable attacker that can MITM the request for the BIP70 message but not\nthe request to get the QR code. Adding a hash makes QR codes more bloated\nand harder to scan, all on the assumption that HTTPS is broken in some odd\nway that we haven't actually ever seen in practice.\n\n(3) This can be useful in the Bluetooth context, but then again, we could\nalso do things a different way by signing with the key in the first part of\nthe URI, thus avoiding the need for a hash.\n\nI know I've been around the loop on this one with Andreas many times. But\nthis BIP doesn't fix any actually existing problem in the previous spec. It\nexists because Andreas thinks SSL is useless. If SSL is useless we all have\nmuch bigger problems.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140912/4985906c/attachment.html\u003e"}