1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1TdIKH-0005LS-5w
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:23:37 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.219.47])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1TdIKB-0006Xn-S6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:23:37 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id h1so13025386oag.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:23:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.13.198 with SMTP id j6mr12080061oec.51.1354011806549; Tue,
27 Nov 2012 02:23:26 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.128.139 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:23:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <895A1D97-68B4-4A2F-B4A1-34814B9BA8AC@ceptacle.com>
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
<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>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:23:26 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: bAnW4UOWsSBZ8x_Dhk_oTqVhnFc
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1u0-JNf1nd4NsZhrqC=M0Yx3J6cTYA=bzKm8CTucd85w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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
0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1TdIKB-0006Xn-S6
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:23:37 -0000
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com> wrote:
> * What if the SignedReceipt is not received AND the transactions IS posted on the p2p.
I think this is a problem with confusing terminology rather then the
spec itself.
The original formulation had a receipt being something generated
purely by the buyer. The signed Invoice message + the Bitcoin
transactions paying to the outputs + the merkle branches showing
acceptance by the network *is* the receipt.
The SignedReceipt message is useful in the sense that it shows
confirmation by the merchant, but if you don't get one, you can still
prove you paid the invoice. So from this perspective perhaps
SignedReceipt should be renamed to Acceptance or something like that,
and then the spec should call out that a signed invoice plus accepted
Bitcoin transactions is mathematically a proof of purchase.
|
