From 250f2f489c974dccd13fd6cf0ebfd7acd774db16 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: wakgill <76528604+wakgill@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 12:47:05 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] Create 119.md --- docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/119.md | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) create mode 100644 docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/119.md diff --git a/docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/119.md b/docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/119.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b5800cc --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/119.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +layout: forum +title: 'Re: URI-scheme for bitcoin' +grand_parent: Forum Posts +parent: Bitcoin Forum +nav_order: 119 +date: 2010-06-16 00:15:47 UTC +original: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63.msg452#msg452 +--- + +# Re: URI-scheme for bitcoin + +--- + +``` +Re: URI-scheme for bitcoin +June 16, 2010, 12:15:47 AM + +http://127.0.0.1:8330/?to=domain.com&amount=200.00&comment=order_12345 +or +http://127.0.0.1:8330/?to=1.2.3.4&amount=200.00 + +But as long as the link is already doing the typing for you, I don't see much benefit in using a domain address instead of bitcoin address. With a bitcoin address, the user can't send an unidentified payment. They can't send payment until they've been given a correct bitcoin address to send to. + +What would be nice about sending by domain is you could visually verify who it's going to. + + +A more crucial issue is what if the browser isn't allowed to connect to 127.0.0.1: +http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63.msg1589#msg1589 + +and if that's true, then what about that example freenet link that had 127.0.0.1 in it? +```