Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W31kQ-00011C-JK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:01:30 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1W31kP-0005JJ-7d for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:01:30 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W31kF-0006uN-Tl for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:01:19 +0100 Received: from e179074100.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.179.74.100]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:01:19 +0100 Received: from andreas by e179074100.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:01:19 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:01:08 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: e179074100.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1W31kP-0005JJ-7d Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment protocol and reliable Payment messages 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: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:01:30 -0000 On 01/14/2014 11:45 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Imagine you get a good offer (payment request) from a merchant. You > would like to accept that offer, however the merchant has changed his > mind. > > > Usually if the merchant has not delivered, then at that point it's not a > problem and he is allowed to change his mind. It's only if they change > their mind *after* you pay that it's a problem, right? It was my understanding of the spec that a payment request is legally binding one side for the specified amount of time. Basically I offer you to sell you these 10 eggs (described in the memo) for this amount if you accept until this time. I have even signed this so you can know its me who made you the offer. If you accept (by paying), the contract is valid and there should be nothing I can do about it (except for extreme cases which are covered by law already). Actually what good is the payment request if its not binding? Why do we have an expiry time in the message?