Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W8tCL-00017x-P6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:06:33 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.49; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1W8tCI-00016z-IA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:06:33 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a1so6616792wgh.16 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:06:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.90.144 with SMTP id bw16mr9555406wjb.1.1391094383421; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:06:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.10.197 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:06:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:06:23 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfcf35c92aff304f1316676 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1W8tCI-00016z-IA Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Andreas Schildbach Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics 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, 30 Jan 2014 15:06:34 -0000 --047d7bfcf35c92aff304f1316676 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Is this truly the intent? That the merchant/processor takes full > responsibility for getting the TX confirmed? > The intent is to give the customer a great experience. We could talk for months about whether having the wallet broadcast the transaction as soon as possible or having it wait for the merchant to respond with a PaymentACK is better. But I think we should let wallets experiment with different ways of doing it, and see what works best in practice. -- -- Gavin Andresen --047d7bfcf35c92aff304f1316676 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
I= s this truly the intent? =A0That the merchant/processor takes full
responsibility for getting the TX confirmed?

Th= e intent is to give the customer a great experience. We could talk for mont= hs about whether having the wallet broadcast the transaction as soon as pos= sible or having it wait for the merchant to respond with a PaymentACK is be= tter. But I think we should let wallets experiment with different ways of d= oing it, and see what works best in practice.


--
--
Ga= vin Andresen
--047d7bfcf35c92aff304f1316676--