Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Te7wi-0007wR-Ry for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:30:44 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Te7we-0001Zw-IR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:30:44 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id u2so11832239lag.34 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:30:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.123.103 with SMTP id lz7mr22215679lab.21.1354210233860; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.40.73 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:30:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121129170713.GD6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> References: <20121128233619.GA6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20121129170713.GD6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:30:33 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Roy Badami 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 (gavinandresen[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: 1Te7we-0001Zw-IR Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:30:45 -0000 On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Roy Badami wrote: > I'd still like to understand the rationale for having the merchant > broadcast the transaction - it seems to add complexity and create edge > cases. Mike Hearn has experimented with in-person payments using bluetooth/NFC on a phone, where the merchant has full Internet connectivity but the phone might only be able to connect to the merchant via a Bluetooth/NFC paymentURI. I think I agree with you, though: if the device DOES have bitcoin-p2p-network-connectivity, then expecting the client to broadcast the transaction might be cleaner. However, if a connection to the paymentURI is made and the transaction data has been sent, clients have to deal with the case where the merchant also broadcasts the transaction, no matter what the spec says and even if the merchant sends an "accepted : false" response. -- -- Gavin Andresen