diff options
| author | Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> | 2014-01-13 18:56:57 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2014-01-13 17:57:03 +0000 |
| commit | 6ff5909173d2acaccb3ad92079bd5f20760d37be (patch) | |
| tree | 2273c011ba906619f4731195a060b25aa820c7b5 | |
| parent | 6b47c004588541a77cfc9ba5b80d77c8b6ea723f (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-6ff5909173d2acaccb3ad92079bd5f20760d37be.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-6ff5909173d2acaccb3ad92079bd5f20760d37be.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment protocol and reliable Payment messages
| -rw-r--r-- | 48/4485bc560fa6ecb20ed176d08107f0ce48d8e8 | 116 |
1 files changed, 116 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/48/4485bc560fa6ecb20ed176d08107f0ce48d8e8 b/48/4485bc560fa6ecb20ed176d08107f0ce48d8e8 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..51bd4eea5 --- /dev/null +++ b/48/4485bc560fa6ecb20ed176d08107f0ce48d8e8 @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1W2ll1-0001vx-N6 + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:57:03 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.223.171; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; + helo=mail-ie0-f171.google.com; +Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]) + by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1W2ll0-0005gd-M8 + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:57:03 +0000 +Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id to1so4277211ieb.2 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:56:57 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.43.155.147 with SMTP id li19mr1322083icc.94.1389635817413; + Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:56:57 -0800 (PST) +Received: by 10.50.90.42 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:56:57 -0800 (PST) +In-Reply-To: <lb18l6$nu2$1@ger.gmane.org> +References: <CAPg+sBhdgVQvumL_r9thLD5wm7UOJx=2DE+01-T58HHdimvpXw@mail.gmail.com> + <lb18l6$nu2$1@ger.gmane.org> +Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:56:57 +0100 +Message-ID: <CAPg+sBji5sFWZ_mDVXKKwkyeGYDbLmvwau457nmntT_NgTT+Sw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> +To: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider + (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from + author's domain + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature +X-Headers-End: 1W2ll0-0005gd-M8 +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment protocol and reliable Payment + messages +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:57:03 -0000 + +On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Andreas Schildbach +<andreas@schildbach.de> wrote: +> On 01/13/2014 05:43 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: +> +>> As an optimization (and I believe this is what Mike plans to implement +>> in BitcoinJ), if a payment_url is present, it should be encouraged to +>> only send the payment there, and not broadcast the transaction at all +>> on the P2P network (minimizing the risk that the transaction confirms +>> without the payment being received; it can't be guaranteed however). + +I want to avoid the case where a transaction confirms, but the +associated payment is not delivered. If there is a reasonable chance +that this case occurs in normal operation, it means the payment +transmission cannot be relied upon. + +On the other hand, if the payment gets sent, but the transaction is +not broadcasted, it can be broadcasted by the receiver (who has much +more reason to do so; he wants to spend his money). +> +> Can you explain what the problem is here? The payment message can be +> transmitted after the payment has been received through the P2P network. +> Am I missing something? + +So, yes, sending on the P2P network is fine, as long as everything is +done to get the payment delivered. Not broadcasting on P2P is just an +optimization that makes failures of not getting the transaction out +and not getting the payment delivered coincide better. I say just +optimization, as you can't rely on the fact that if the payment fails, +the transaction will also fail (the merchant may be malicious, make +the submission of the payment fail, but broadcast the transaction +anyway), so wallets must still be able to deal with this. Nonetheless, +I think it can increase the reliability of "payment being received for +otherwise confirming transactions". +> +> Furthermore, if we give up the robustness of the P2P network, we will +> likely end up with more failed payments. There is so much that can go +> wrong when trying to connect via HTTP (proxies etc.), Bluetooth +> endpoints can go away, etc. At least we should provide fallback +> payment_url's in this case. + +That's a different issue. I'm very aware that payments over HTTP can +fail. The point is that I prefer the entire transaction to fail in +that case, instead, and focus on making the payment submission more +reliable. +> +> As for you proposal, just be aware I'd like to use the payment protocol +> for face to face payments as well. That meant payment request via NFC or +> QR, payment message and payment confirmations via Bluetooth. I think it +> can be done by putting a Bluetooth mac address into the payment_url. + +I'm aware. What issues do you see? + +-- +Pieter + + |