Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121127113612.GA25418@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:46:17 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E16289E3-C614-43EC-B713-128FC149BB5C@ceptacle.com>
References: <CACwuEiP7CGeZZGW=mXwrFAAqbbwbrPXTPb8vOEDuO9_96hqBGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSY8hHiCJYEDv=y48hYRJJtB-R5EBX8JLz6NivBm+Z9PQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwuEiMjf8WYOpfmzHUHMa-sy2VsJHaUNj1cj722Y=P_sosbvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ1JLtuJ8HQri7++2bodc2ACRrE7Y48oy0HkPR8d400MooHaqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwuEiMgcv09U2P9dD58x-oMXMSg==fPYo0yRLsqzyuax96Eqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ1JLttTPi9XNwCGyvbvx8TXqbLyk0KxFRHxv_8UB+tEQrKvvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwuEiNZobcpR4g=1AH=JReZFzHmH=6exNGTaPBBjm+q5eR9vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<895A1D97-68B4-4A2F-B4A1-34814B9BA8AC@ceptacle.com>
	<CANEZrP1u0-JNf1nd4NsZhrqC=M0Yx3J6cTYA=bzKm8CTucd85w@mail.gmail.com>
	<626D0E73-1111-4380-AABE-6C8C65F2FFCC@ceptacle.com>
	<20121127113612.GA25418@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Precedence: list

>=20
> If a merchant/payment processor is willing to take the risk of zero or
> low confirmation transactions (because they are insured against it,
> for example), they were allowed to reply "accepted" immediately, and
> this would be a permanent proof of payment, even if the actual Bitcoin
> transaction that backs it gets reverted.

I guess that moves the discussion from developers to lawyers ;) Even =
though you send a signed receipt, if you can proof you didn't get the =
money, you will never be expected to deliver the goods. (and you can =
even write that in the the receipt ...)

So the SignedReceipt is legally not worth the bits it is composed of, =
hence I don't see the point in supporting it.

If you are selling atoms you can usually wait for N confirmations (even =
though you start shipping I guess you can recall a parcel within 144 =
blocks). If you are selling bits (like access to a site), you can revoke =
that access once you discover the transaction did not go through. So I =
can't find a use case where a Signed Receipt in the proposed form is =
advantageous.

/M=