Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:18:38 +0100
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20140114131838.GA10516@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <CAPg+sBhdgVQvumL_r9thLD5wm7UOJx=2DE+01-T58HHdimvpXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<lb18l6$nu2$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<CAPg+sBji5sFWZ_mDVXKKwkyeGYDbLmvwau457nmntT_NgTT+Sw@mail.gmail.com>
	<lb30mu$jjh$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<CANEZrP3BeFMLtcThr=Gp5mudbtQeT_dHno1DGQzOg28YKBNkzA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140114114134.GA9838@netbook.cypherspace.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140114114134.GA9838@netbook.cypherspace.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment protocol and reliable Payment
 messages
Precedence: list

Maybe even pay to (address derived from) contract hash has a hole: it
assumes the merchant cashes the funds (or cashes then reimburses via the
refund address).  There is another rational (though abusive) move for the
merchant: let the buyers funds sit in limbo.  Then the buyer has the onus to
go into disupte, maybe the seller is anonymous, in another country, or the
cost of dispute resolution more than the value lost, and anyway its not very
smart-contract like.

It might be better if the buyer has time-stamped evidence of having sent the
funds to the merchant, and evidence of non-collection of funds by the
merchant (by omission from the block chain).

Adam