Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk
	designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk;
	helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; 
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:28:58 +0100
From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130807212858.GN16713@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBhb3WOYnWRc020QbGwE0W4XeWWmXXTqYyAqrtB7h0+b8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0o2BN+UyZt-TYcEXX_U0ztP3Rq3+arr_2C1MPEtU_dUg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0o2BN+UyZt-TYcEXX_U0ztP3Rq3+arr_2C1MPEtU_dUg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72
Precedence: list

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 07:10:05AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: should the customer's machine not broadcast the transaction:

If we're going to allow payments to fail without being broadcast (but
where the wallet can't in general prove that the receiver hasn't seen
the transaction) then I would argue that it becomes highly desirable
that the wallet invalidates the transaction at the earliest
opportunity by spending the outputs in a pay-to-self transaction.

Otherwise malicious receivers, or temporary failures, could result in
the user being told that the transfer didn't happen, but then the
coins actually leaving the wallet anyway a short time later.

roy