Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W874P-0004ok-Uq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:43:09 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.169; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1W874K-0007p2-B9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:43:09 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wo20so266455obc.0 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:42:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.123.10 with SMTP id lw10mr792542oeb.24.1390909378911; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:42:58 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.99.112 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:42:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:42:58 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4c6HQAf0hAhwkt0-tMa1VgceASM Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Kevin Greene Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d49ce71e2ae04f106539b X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1W874K-0007p2-B9 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Andreas Schildbach Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:43:10 -0000 --047d7b5d49ce71e2ae04f106539b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yeah, that's the interpretation I think we should go with for now. There was a reason why this isn't specified and I forgot what it was - some inability to come to agreement on when to broadcast vs when to submit via HTTP, I think. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Kevin Greene wrote: > >> Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when > it > >> receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that? > > > > In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK: > > acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the > > transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course). > > Ok, so if there is no > payment > _url specified in the PaymentRequest, then the wallet is responsible for > broadcasting > the transaction to the bitcoin network > . > Otherwise, the wallet should > rely on the merchant server to broadcast. > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene >> wrote: >> > +1 for an error field. >> >> Agree, I think we need a way for client applications to interpret the >> response. >> >> > Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when >> it >> > receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that? >> >> In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK: >> acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the >> transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course). > > >> >> -- >> Pieter >> > > --047d7b5d49ce71e2ae04f106539b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yeah, that's the interpretation I think we should go w= ith for now. There was a reason why this isn't specified and I forgot w= hat it was - some inability to come to agreement on when to broadcast vs wh= en to submit via HTTP, I think.




On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreen= ek@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Should the wallet= broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when it
>> receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do= that?
>
> In my opinion, th= at should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:
> acknowledgement= that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the
> transaction confirmed (to the exte= nt possible, of course).

O= k, so if there is no
payment
_url specified in the PaymentRequest, then the wallet is respo= nsible for broadcasting
the transaction to the bitcoin n= etwork
.
Otherwise, the wallet should
rely on the merchant server to broadcast.


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.= com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for an error field.

Agree, I think we need a way for client applications to interpret the= response.

> Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network whe= n it
> receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do tha= t?

In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK= :
acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the
transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).


--
Pieter


--047d7b5d49ce71e2ae04f106539b--