Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WRZOY-0003F8-4r for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 03:48:22 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.128.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.128.170; envelope-from=alexy.kot.all@gmail.com; helo=mail-ve0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-ve0-f170.google.com ([209.85.128.170]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WRZOX-0004Y0-DL for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 03:48:22 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f170.google.com with SMTP id pa12so4299038veb.15 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 20:48:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.220.95.139 with SMTP id d11mr278428vcn.21.1395546495907; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 20:48:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: alexy.kot.all@gmail.com Received: by 10.59.0.38 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 20:47:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20140320121221.GA25052@netbook.cypherspace.org> <532DC076.4060007@monetize.io> From: Alex Kotenko Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 03:47:35 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: iDeSHTmD0aoS-D7DMyPmMyEc6GQ Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ae7627fc1904f53dfdee 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 (alexy.kot.all[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: 1WRZOX-0004Y0-DL Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments 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: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 03:48:22 -0000 --001a11c2ae7627fc1904f53dfdee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I know that general approach to interaction design in Bitcoin assumes minimal to no difference between payer and payee, and generally I agree with this approach. However, for the sake of my PoS development this assumption is wrong by default, as PoS is a specialized hardware, and one who cared to buy and install it is probably not in the same situation as the other party that didn't care to by anything dedicated. In short - from PoS point of view there is a customer and a merchant. And my goal is to make thing work in assumption of fast and reliable connection on merchant side and no connection requirement at all from customer side. I didn't put a silly example, as of my experience there are really a lot of places where cellphone connection isn't good enough for reliable Bitcoin operation. However, if we're talking about merchant establishments - we can hope for private local WiFi or wired connection on PoS side, so PoS internet connection shouldn't be an issue. So this is the use case I'm designing around and this is why bluetooth based BIP70 implementation is important for me. I partly agree with Mike on user interface and IOU idea, but I have no intention to implement anything like that right now. --001a11c2ae7627fc1904f53dfdee Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I know that general approach to interaction de= sign in Bitcoin assumes minimal to no difference between payer and payee, a= nd generally I agree with this approach.=C2=A0
However, for the sake of my PoS development this assumption is = wrong by default, as PoS is a specialized hardware, and one who cared to bu= y and install it is probably not in the same situation as the other party t= hat didn't care to by anything dedicated.=C2=A0

In short - from PoS point of view there i= s a customer and a merchant. And my goal is to make thing work in assumptio= n of fast and reliable connection on merchant side and no connection requir= ement at all from customer side.=C2=A0

I didn't put a silly example, as of m= y experience there are really a lot of places where cellphone connection is= n't good enough for reliable Bitcoin operation. However, if we're t= alking about merchant establishments - we can hope for private local WiFi o= r wired connection on PoS side, so PoS internet connection shouldn't be= an issue. So this is the use case I'm designing around and this is why= bluetooth based BIP70 implementation is important for me.

I partly agree with Mike on user interfac= e and IOU idea, but I have no intention to implement anything like that rig= ht now.

=
--001a11c2ae7627fc1904f53dfdee--