1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1W8wKP-0000yg-Nk
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:27:05 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.172 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.172; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f172.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W8t55-0000iE-Dg
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:59:06 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id e14so3439119iej.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:58:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.142.129 with SMTP id s1mr10662172icu.30.1391093936588;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.100.10 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:58:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0MVbDnC0i+uT9Sahxk8ht9R5ztSJ-kOU5ERapeVibH9eg@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>
<CAPg+sBgUNYqYm7d4Rv+f0rBa=nSuqwmZ6_REBS7M-+Wea+za0g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0MVbDnC0i+uT9Sahxk8ht9R5ztSJ-kOU5ERapeVibH9eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:58:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjL=jZBWRxKmAJH5mi2LUmM-cw3u6u5vNZ1zXh62=JSUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.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: 1W8t55-0000iE-Dg
Cc: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:27:06 -0000
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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).
>
> Is this truly the intent? That the merchant/processor takes full
> responsibility for getting the TX confirmed?
Confirmed is probably the wrong word. But IMHO (not how it's currently
worded), the merchant should take that responsibility after delivering
a PaymentACK. This means the client does not need to stay online
anymore. More importantly, it removes the requirement for the P2P
network to function as a reliable sender->receiver communication
channel (and reduces it to a broadcast medium to get transactions to
miners).
--
Pieter
|
