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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: alexy.kot.all@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1=i6eYaJq3JWbQhofrkLExt9ZKEy-Vuq6q48n+UWKWjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <lc5hmg$1jh$1@ger.gmane.org> <leuunm$tjk$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<CANEZrP3nQfvDArKTRgje0Cus4G2JD_zpxSjA3fXfxM2TNAP80Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALDj+BafD+6KTNcYDBEu5gNPzYozSkiC-JCxrY-PzXL2DYBRsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0N4J_Z907+D0ENSNKfNAW2N=7Jf4JzSCO=SU558GtGTzA@mail.gmail.com>
	<lge7nk$3mf$2@ger.gmane.org>
	<CANEZrP0J849oDvMWjf8LWi0xj44Q8DaUwDip5_smVBMNgeQ3mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140320121221.GA25052@netbook.cypherspace.org>
	<CAJHLa0NeFdXzioQrmK6iKzr85pL3vvTAQH2_vKM3M+T+ZWYjgQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<lgh47n$tnn$2@ger.gmane.org>
	<CALDj+BbX+ejz+diWDGFJUyOLR6+GnbDyiiNpmEbHybNBj=jL7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0OK1vRiqoHDNYrbO9fNTa8tcY9dMsJ5fC0qpsHS80zvbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<532DC076.4060007@monetize.io>
	<CAJHLa0NtpFnvWLNa=poOKho-wH7gXevNj=WfAaoWFxDMCSCZrw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1=i6eYaJq3JWbQhofrkLExt9ZKEy-Vuq6q48n+UWKWjw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Kotenko <alexykot@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 03:47:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CALDj+BZpBx1bKis-RGxt9q8vnJ4Ds4a=-LmAS_gHCEgGOeBMfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ae7627fc1904f53dfdee
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments
Precedence: list

--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

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier =
new,monospace;color:#003300">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</div>

<div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier new,monospace;col=
or:#003300">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&#39;t care to by anything dedicated.=C2=A0</div>

<div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier new,monospace;col=
or:#003300"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:cou=
rier new,monospace;color:#003300">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</div>

<div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier new,monospace;col=
or:#003300"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:cou=
rier new,monospace;color:#003300">I didn&#39;t put a silly example, as of m=
y experience there are really a lot of places where cellphone connection is=
n&#39;t good enough for reliable Bitcoin operation. However, if we&#39;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&#39;t be=
 an issue. So this is the use case I&#39;m designing around and this is why=
 bluetooth based BIP70 implementation is important for me.</div>

<div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier new,monospace;col=
or:#003300"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:cou=
rier new,monospace;color:#003300">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.</div>

<div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier new,monospace;col=
or:#003300"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_defaul=
t" style=3D"font-family:&#39;courier new&#39;,monospace;color:rgb(0,51,0)">=
<br></div>

</div></div>

--001a11c2ae7627fc1904f53dfdee--