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
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WTV7i-0003vY-3U
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:38:58 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.180; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com ([209.85.213.180])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WTV7h-0004IQ-3G
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:38:58 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hl1so702233igb.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.60.103 with SMTP id g7mr37466512igr.20.1396006731772;
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.70.131 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lh3m7i$v18$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CANEZrP0AwR3WgHfwYWcrC9Z_MHPDwymWXAQwp7D8XZ+o2FsK8g@mail.gmail.com>
<lh3m7i$v18$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:38:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCf9o6VEky=JXgrG8v39hyQtPz71yuftF_jyp0bX9WHsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b1117c159f8fe04f5a92519
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
(laanwj[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: 1WTV7h-0004IQ-3G
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 70 refund field
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: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:38:58 -0000
--047d7b1117c159f8fe04f5a92519
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Andreas Schildbach
<andreas@schildbach.de>wrote:
> I see the problem.
>
> However, I don't see how PaymentDetails can be an answer. None of the
> fields (other than outputs and network) can be known in advance (at the
> time of the initial payment).
>
> You're probably aiming for an expires field? How would you refund a
> payment after expiry? Note its not your choice wether to refund a
> payment -- it can be ordered by a court years after the payment happened.
>
Communication between the merchant and buyer would be needed in this case.
I'd say that would be not unreasonable if something is to be refunded after
a year or more. After all, people may have moved, bank accounts changed,
even outside the bitcoin world.
It should probably not be accepted to set a very low expiration time for
the refund address, like <3 months, as it's as bad as not providing a
refund address at all and brings back all the pre-BIP70 confusion.
Wladimir
--047d7b1117c159f8fe04f5a92519
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Andreas Schildbach <span dir=3D"ltr"><=
<a href=3D"mailto:andreas@schildbach.de" target=3D"_blank">andreas@schildba=
ch.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I see the problem.<br>
<br>
However, I don't see how PaymentDetails can be an answer. None of the<b=
r>
fields (other than outputs and network) can be known in advance (at the<br>
time of the initial payment).<br>
<br>
You're probably aiming for an expires field? How would you refund a<br>
payment after expiry? Note its not your choice wether to refund a<br>
payment -- it can be ordered by a court years after the payment happened.<b=
r></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Communication between the merchant and b=
uyer would be needed in this case.<br><br></div><div>I'd say that would=
be not unreasonable if something is to be refunded after a year or more. A=
fter all, people may have moved, bank accounts changed, even outside the bi=
tcoin world.<br>
<br></div><div>It should probably not be accepted to set a very low expirat=
ion time for the refund address, like <3 months, as it's as bad as n=
ot providing a refund address at all and brings back all the pre-BIP70 conf=
usion.<br>
</div><div></div><div><br></div><div class=3D"h5">Wladimir<br></div></div><=
br></div></div>
--047d7b1117c159f8fe04f5a92519--
|
