Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W7uqt-00012d-46 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:40:23 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.170; envelope-from=kgreenek@gmail.com; helo=mail-vc0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-vc0-f170.google.com ([209.85.220.170]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1W7uqs-0001XT-DA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:40:23 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hu8so3925497vcb.1 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:40:16 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.58.66.137 with SMTP id f9mr17400935vet.11.1390862416868; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:40:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.86.9 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:39:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Kevin Greene Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:39:56 -0800 Message-ID: To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d8564a004c04f0fb643d X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (kgreenek[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1W7uqs-0001XT-DA 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: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:40:23 -0000 --047d7b33d8564a004c04f0fb643d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> 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 > --047d7b33d8564a004c04f0fb643d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
= >> Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network= when it
>> receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant se= rver 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).

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


O= n Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.c= om> 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

--047d7b33d8564a004c04f0fb643d--