Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.212.178 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.178; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f178.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140509150325.GA30436@savin>
References: <CANEZrP3VNXSc2cd3b9pz9iC2BR0-vG=tfYwMyUGBGaWPq+geXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140509150325.GA30436@savin>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 05:19:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0M1T8XyiYNqbVp2ch_J1n-eE63UzXyb0XA9bDASGEnrLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] ECDH in the payment protocol
Precedence: list

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> Of course we quickly rejected the idea of depending solely on a
> communications backchannel to retrieve funds. Any communications medium
> that isn't the blockchain makes the payment non-atomic, and thus creates
> opportunities for it to fail.

This is extremely simple-minded logic that encourages ephemeral, junk
data in the blockchain.  Not a scalable approach.

The implication is to put the communications medium in the blockchain
itself, which is wrong.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/