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
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
|
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 <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1W8sy3-0003r5-0A
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:51:47 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.43; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f43.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W8sy0-0000JX-Mp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:51:46 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id y10so6505450wgg.22
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:51:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=pAlSnS3tS0Ao5lhkym67sBK7LO+KcZtMKz0/fxqP7wE=;
b=BpoqfCqseew4CxGitNH81Gr4x8jvWQh52oCbp9FkfQDdUivpZw8e2FiMfHHyeRXLQa
lVU6uwzRskMC0bG7tX6LOslKQvtZAf4xk+ptlbnCs+XOnel+yYav18AAC1dLrVpoTk5X
LGxxzRUhpYdkMB4aFaokHk9iqM7EXYpvgFdBjhisS5vuKVOmVfSDJg1ERfuhuYGFNXvF
AiTklLhk1KjV8jnrI2Ri/i8++hnGS+2VP3Bv/ze8wU4uzj1PeVnnU0+UQJg7U/sH1+wa
mAfgVBh/kJRF6VQTZDDb1XKfL7QcQOnbrWwYBfWdoaucREeBblWu9YGnPeibJW/6now1
vOqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnLeNXW9xLq/CvX2ohPoCl09B0NCfjTYfag1oEXbH3DrhGSX/jXcsHn5UW3CNWf4wWN6q2a
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.184.105 with SMTP id et9mr23133902wic.36.1391093484210;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.2.164 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:51:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBgUNYqYm7d4Rv+f0rBa=nSuqwmZ6_REBS7M-+Wea+za0g@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>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:51:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0MVbDnC0i+uT9Sahxk8ht9R5ztSJ-kOU5ERapeVibH9eg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@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 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: 1W8sy0-0000JX-Mp
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 14:51:47 -0000
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?
It is within the customer's economic incentive -- and right as a free
person -- to work to get their transaction relayed to the network and
confirmed in parallel with whatever the merchant is doing.
BIP 70 states that the customer broadcasts the transaction, in
addition to sending the Payment message.
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
|
