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
88
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <adam@cypherspace.org>) id 1W33tu-0003U9-FD
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:19:26 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.194])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W33tt-0003Bp-0L
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:19:26 +0000
Received: from netbook (c107-70.i07-27.onvol.net [92.251.107.70])
by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
id 0MTSbX-1VtTeP1dBf-00RrG1; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:18:47 -0500
Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 492742E283F; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:18:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000);
Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:18:38 +0100
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:18:38 +0100
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20140114131838.GA10516@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <CAPg+sBhdgVQvumL_r9thLD5wm7UOJx=2DE+01-T58HHdimvpXw@mail.gmail.com>
<lb18l6$nu2$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CAPg+sBji5sFWZ_mDVXKKwkyeGYDbLmvwau457nmntT_NgTT+Sw@mail.gmail.com>
<lb30mu$jjh$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CANEZrP3BeFMLtcThr=Gp5mudbtQeT_dHno1DGQzOg28YKBNkzA@mail.gmail.com>
<20140114114134.GA9838@netbook.cypherspace.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140114114134.GA9838@netbook.cypherspace.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140114:mike@plan99.net::ThGeo/JXKaOj9wvF:007KNh
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140114:andreas@schildbach.de::QoSOX3S2gLeTzKnl:0000000000000000
0000000000000000000000004Eqq
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140114:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::QxuPdi/EJlsa5
pBB:000000000000000000003yOY
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140114:adam@cypherspace.org::cYLVISS7GVdnjQz1:00000000000000000
0000000000000000000000001BBZ
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:rgNtnTtVGmbU7TbJXIkFf1x3EwksYIBnhpPFAj90uBT
YdlR+xoUkqh8MdXy6XEDURHKBCUG5iSddc6d6+1haA19VZrwUl
WI8YFnpkvdRKaReVI3+l2KeroPxds2S1Q4L8Ueexh6DJT9g0QT
RxpDQn1ftzDEfHBAiWUi88LBUGLgDhmKiQdydM9jXYwNSzLnNN
3DAdkZUewAQ2xOlAcfJwjZnmdACA4fPx//pTJFlLn0Qj7r6Gdx
AGjjoMDCNpJoabwcSHwHkyEE+y1H8Raha1+2iWPvxIpnOQyV6B
5K74/3pPmk2ciWk819iPVGkYSmypd6DyLEm0vsbDsEG3NDxBan
+c72OQFhAYPOqPP//BlrOiB5gtVQnxEECvmc9Z9t8
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
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 [74.208.4.194 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1W33tt-0003Bp-0L
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
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: <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, 14 Jan 2014 13:19:26 -0000
Maybe even pay to (address derived from) contract hash has a hole: it
assumes the merchant cashes the funds (or cashes then reimburses via the
refund address). There is another rational (though abusive) move for the
merchant: let the buyers funds sit in limbo. Then the buyer has the onus to
go into disupte, maybe the seller is anonymous, in another country, or the
cost of dispute resolution more than the value lost, and anyway its not very
smart-contract like.
It might be better if the buyer has time-stamped evidence of having sent the
funds to the merchant, and evidence of non-collection of funds by the
merchant (by omission from the block chain).
Adam
|
