recommendation: url protocol for bitcoin-links

[vv01f]

I really would like to open my local client/app with a single click on a link
providing at least sum and receiver-address to the client.

so e.g.
btc://0.25@1HH5zTPQCHwZKwDf8KVADwD3XJBwC1YtXg

or

(unknown protocols are not parsed correctly as link by this forum)

would hand over a quarter to me
without any other service/website


Any suggestions what should be minded beside receiver and the amount to pay or are there better ideas?

related topics:
URI-scheme for bitcoin
[RFC] Bitcoin Payment URI scheme
[PULL] URI Support

[wumpus]

There are various bitcoin URI proposals already.

bitcoin-qt simply uses "bitcoin:<addr>?label=<label>&amount=<BTC>"  (label and amount are optional)

There is also a wiki page on http://wiki.bitcoin.it that describes a more arcane format.

[Alex Zee]

There is a patch that I made for this forum to support bitcoin:// links somewhere in the Meta section. It lays there for months already because there is no consensus on how the links should look.

My personal favorite is bitcoin:/0.02/address

[error]

btc://0.25@1HH5zTPQCHwZKwDf8KVADwD3XJBwC1YtXg

0.25 is a username? What context do usernames even have in Bitcoin URLs?

There is a patch that I made for this forum to support bitcoin:// links somewhere in the Meta section. It lays there for months already because there is no consensus on how the links should look.

My personal favorite is bitcoin:/0.02/address

Unfortunately this will never happen since URL parsers can't handle it.... since it is even farther outside the URL format than the one in the top post.

[Alex Zee]

Unfortunately this will never happen since URL parsers can't handle it.... since it is even farther outside the URL format than the one in the top post.

Well, let's make it bitcoin://0.02/address then.

It reads very logically: "Send 0.02 to this address", from left to right in natural order.

[vv01f]

There is also a wiki page on http://wiki.bitcoin.it that describes a more arcane format.

I'd appreciate a link to the page, as I did not find it.
So youre one of the ppl with the ability to implement and distribute that feature - are there links already handled with your gui?

0.25 is a username? What context do usernames even have in Bitcoin URLs?

are you kidding? plz just read again.. no username even mentioned.

since it is even farther outside the URL format than the one in the top post

And that one makes me question your technical qualification. There is no prob in parsing that url.

[Alex Zee]

vv01f, you're heading straight into a shitstorm 

[memvola]

There is also a wiki page on http://wiki.bitcoin.it that describes a more arcane format.

I'd appreciate a link to the page, as I did not find it.

Obviously: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/URI_Scheme

Also, theymos et al. had this idea, but it kinda fell out of favor: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/X-btc

0.25 is a username? What context do usernames even have in Bitcoin URLs?

are you kidding? plz just read again.. no username even mentioned.

since it is even farther outside the URL format than the one in the top post

And that one makes me question your technical qualification. There is no prob in parsing that url.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986

[error]

There is also a wiki page on http://wiki.bitcoin.it that describes a more arcane format.

I'd appreciate a link to the page, as I did not find it.
So youre one of the ppl with the ability to implement and distribute that feature - are there links already handled with your gui?

0.25 is a username? What context do usernames even have in Bitcoin URLs?

are you kidding? plz just read again.. no username even mentioned.

since it is even farther outside the URL format than the one in the top post

And that one makes me question your technical qualification. There is no prob in parsing that url.

Come back when you've read and understood the relevant RFCs for URIs, such as RFC 3986. Neither of these proposals is anywhere near compliant, and that's going to mean breakage out here in the real world.

[vv01f]

Obviously: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/URI_Scheme

Not obviously enough   for some reason i overread it on search   .

Neither of these proposals is anywhere near compliant, and that's going to mean breakage out here in the real world.

You mean like e.g. callto://YourSkypeName or tel://0043150123456789 ?   but still parsing was never an issue - or why are there email-addresses with percent-sign as delimiter for lists?
Standards are nice, but sometimes not ultima ratio - or am I wrong?  


AND

amount@address is as convenient as user@host. just project yourself being the "coins" and searching a way to go. thinking of userinfo as userid or even name is a bit crude to me.
It would have been nice to mention the RFC in first place, then I would have reason to doubt your knowledge due to that intentional(?) misunderstanding.

[Alex Zee]

vv01f, I agree with you. But there are lots of people here who have an incredible, pathological need to follow "the standard" to the letter.

By the standard, of course, they mean their interpretation of it and no amount of talking will convince them otherwise.

You will just be labeled all sorts of things and scorned at because "you probably don't even know what RFC means" (actual quote from my previous encounters with these people).

The only way this issue will be resolved: every developer will implement URI's as he sees fit and the best one will eventually win.

So don't waste your breath arguing here, just use the URI scheme you think is best.

[vv01f]

But it was my prior intention to argue about the elements of that uri and its options.

I can live with other opinions quite fine . At least I try to understand the ways others are thinking regardless the other party does.
Most times the tradeoff is not that far away as soon as everyone realises its an argument not a struggle on true or false.

Finally we now know there are plenty things already thought of in the wiki, as I could have known already if I wasn that blind .

[Alex Zee]

...no amount of talking will convince them otherwise.

But good luck to you

[memvola]

there are lots of people here who have an incredible, pathological need to follow "the standard" to the letter.

Best approach is to use standards or conventions if they don't have any downsides. In this case, they don't. If they have, it's best to fix the standard. For something like URI-schemes, I think that makes sense, don't you?

[vv01f]

...if they don't have any downsides. In this case, they don't.

one downside I thought of: Users have easily to understand it - like tel://0043155985476 - the know http:// from the web, and they know telephone-numbers, easy

plz post an example thats of the same ease for the sending of some btc to a specific address - just to focus on the topic and not just slapping each other

[Alex Zee]

there are lots of people here who have an incredible, pathological need to follow "the standard" to the letter.

Best approach is to use standards or conventions if they don't have any downsides. In this case, they don't. If they have, it's best to fix the standard. For something like URI-schemes, I think that makes sense, don't you?

By the standard, of course, they mean their interpretation of it and no amount of talking will convince them otherwise.

[kjj]

There are TONS of documents about URL and URI standards available.  People should really read them before they start cooking up schemes of their own so that they don't make basic simple mistakes.

[vv01f]

[...]

By the standard, of course, they mean their interpretation of it and no amount of talking will convince them otherwise.

eh, that smells like tripple-post  
behave my friend  

There are TONS of documents about URL and URI standards available.  People should really read them before they start cooking up schemes of their own so that they don't make basic simple mistakes.

you're assuming things that have already been refuted
it seems to be very hard to keep to the point (of the topic)

[memvola]

I'll reply to your point, but this has been discussed in length in these forums and I doubt that any of us will say something new.

I'm sure you'll find those topics easily.

one downside I thought of: Users have easily to understand it - like tel://0043155985476 - the know http:// from the web, and they know telephone-numbers, easy

That would be tel:+43-1-559-8547 or something like that depending on the context. Just like mailto:vv01f@example.com

tel:// or mailto:// wouldn't and shouldn't work.

plz post an example thats of the same ease for the sending of some btc to a specific address - just to focus on the topic and not just slapping each other

bitcoin:15VjRaDX9zpbA8LVnbrCAFzrVzN7ixHNsC?amount=1&label=Faucet&message=Donation

Keep in mind that these schemes are mainly meant for parsers. That's also why standards are important.

[vv01f]

Keep in mind that these schemes are mainly meant for parsers. That's also why standards are important.

youre very right , especially on tel:+43-7654321 - real-world-examples: skype-link, wtai://
so probably a parser (and if only for supporting simple-minded like me) would do better if the common known "://"-string is also accepted - no big deal so far.

now I knwo, Luke implemented a URI handler (acc to ~half year ago) - question: why isnt it in use (by shops) already   any examples that do?

it seems I things work out well

It also adds an implementation of bitcoin: URIs [...]

[...]
 we chose the most simple format possible, which can be described in one line: bitcoin:<addr>?label=<label>&amount=<BTC>   (label and amount are optional)
[...]