Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.219.49; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oa0-f49.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2ng9vGMmfFK95A1jBK-FotDL-fA1oOt-=zosCPaug-rQ@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>
	<CAEY8wq6n_27Y2N7fVw9uJkfiiYqi6JkTwO0q03_J7tUeBhdQYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0HVJ7Uzow1=4-20LnejURqO5uo16H43uhL=TtNfzhAxQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T2ng9vGMmfFK95A1jBK-FotDL-fA1oOt-=zosCPaug-rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:24:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0-i5B1miM9QTpmavvsdMKYwmXYk9=-OvL4sc0cRkgB3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e3d00c5836d04f107bec9
Cc: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>,
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics
Precedence: list

--047d7b2e3d00c5836d04f107bec9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> And even if you don't care about CoinJoin, not broadcasting the
> transaction as soon as the inputs are signed adds implementation complexity
> (should you retry if payment_url is unavailable? how many times?
>

I guess a lot of wallets just won't broadcast at all and try to submit via
the URL. If they don't succeed, then the transaction is just never
committed to the wallet. Doesn't seem like a big deal. Payment submission
is online, interactive. If it fails, you keep the coins. This seems simple
and straightforward.

If someone really wanted to do a real-time coinjoin, they can build the
transaction together and submit it via payment_url, and broadcast as well.
If the merchant has an issue with the payment for some reason (e.g. request
is expired or the tx is non-standard), well, you'll have to sort it out
with them manually.

--047d7b2e3d00c5836d04f107bec9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div=
 class=3D"gmail_quote">
And even if you don&#39;t care about CoinJoin, not broadcasting the transac=
tion as soon as the inputs are signed adds implementation complexity (shoul=
d you retry if payment_url is unavailable? how many times? </div></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I guess a lot of wallets just won=
9;t broadcast at all and try to submit via the URL. If they don&#39;t succe=
ed, then the transaction is just never committed to the wallet. Doesn&#39;t=
 seem like a big deal. Payment submission is online, interactive. If it fai=
ls, you keep the coins. This seems simple and straightforward.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If someone really wanted to do a real-time coinjoin, th=
ey can build the transaction together and submit it via payment_url, and br=
oadcast as well. If the merchant has an issue with the payment for some rea=
son (e.g. request is expired or the tx is non-standard), well, you&#39;ll h=
ave to sort it out with them manually.=C2=A0</div>
</div></div></div>

--047d7b2e3d00c5836d04f107bec9--