SPDY requires SSL and is even more complex than HTTP. Really, the current protocol we've got (length prefixed protobufs) is just fine except for the lack of encryption/authentication. For that you need to do ECDH to establish a shared AES session key, and MAC each packet. Like I said, it's not entirely trivial which is why it's worth trying SSL too, but it's also not a massive effort. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote: > On 03/21/2014 02:54 PM, Alex Kotenko wrote: > > > > I wonder how complex it would be to implement HTTP-over-Bluetooth. > Not > > > like I'm willing to do that now, but HTTP is well known and proven > > to be > > > quite good for tasks like this, so in theory it would be handy to > have > > > such capacities in here. > > > > Thought of that as well. On the other hand, HTTP might be overkill > and > > we inherit its potential downsides as well. > > > > ​It definitely is an overkill. Don't think we should do it now unless we > > will see later during implementation that we really have to. > > Btw. we could also consider SPDY. I'm not sure about the advantages, but > its probably quicker and leaner. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book > "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their > applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, > this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >