Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1W7uVJ-0007f1-3u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:18:05 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1W7uVI-0002hx-5M for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:18:05 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id e14so6693584iej.18 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:17:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.43.134 with SMTP id w6mr20017787igl.20.1390861078847; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:17:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.100.10 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:17:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CAEY8wq4QEO1rtaNdjHXR6-b3Cgi7pfSWk7M8khVi0MHCiVOBzQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <lc409d$4mf$1@ger.gmane.org> <CABsx9T1Y3sO6eS54wsj377BL4rGoghx1uDzD+SY3tTgc1PPbHg@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP0ENhJJhba8Xwj_cVzNKGDUQriia_Q=JWTXpztb6ic8rg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEY8wq4QEO1rtaNdjHXR6-b3Cgi7pfSWk7M8khVi0MHCiVOBzQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:17:58 +0100 Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgUNYqYm7d4Rv+f0rBa=nSuqwmZ6_REBS7M-+Wea+za0g@mail.gmail.com> From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> To: Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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: 1W7uVI-0002hx-5M Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>, Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:18:05 -0000 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 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