Op 28 sep. 2017, om 18:06 heeft Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev het volgende geschreven: > > On 09/28/2017 04:41 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >>> The payment request message is just as one-way as an address is. It is >>> already being emailed and printed on an invoice, in fact it often acts >>> as the invoice. >> >> True and the more complicated fields, like a digital signature, are optional. Are you suggesting BIP-70 payment requests should be rendered with bech32? How long would those be if it's just the address and expiration date? > > I've not yet progressed that far in segwit support, but I can't think of > a reason why not. You can request coins to any script using the payment > protocol. > > Regarding size, I've had no problems putting (unsigned) payment request > messages into QR codes. I doubt paying to a native segwit address will > change much in size. Protobuf is very efficient. Bech32 is just a replacement for Base58. It's not strictly SegWit related. If I understand correctly the only reason it won't be used for legacy addresses is to prevent confusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqiN9VFE4CU https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki Regarding size I'm mostly curious how big it is on a screen or a physical paper, as text, not as a QR code. This would involve deserializing the protobuf and rendering the result in bech32. I does sound like there's overlap between BIP-70 and BIP-173 that should be resolved. Perhaps any payment request can be rendered as bech32 and any bech32 address can converted to a payment request. Maybe only for a limited set of fields (address, expiration, amount). This would be a matter of agreeing how the protobuf should be serialized and deserialized. In that case the protobuf would not contain the literal bech32 address as a string, but instead it would contain the underlying data (public key / script hash, network, etc). Sjors