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
|
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 <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1W7uVJ-0007f1-3u
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:18:05 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.173 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f173.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W7uVI-0002hx-5M
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:18:05 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id e14so6693584iej.18
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:17:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.43.134 with SMTP id w6mr20017787igl.20.1390861078847;
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:17:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.100.10 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:17:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAEY8wq4QEO1rtaNdjHXR6-b3Cgi7pfSWk7M8khVi0MHCiVOBzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <lc409d$4mf$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CABsx9T1Y3sO6eS54wsj377BL4rGoghx1uDzD+SY3tTgc1PPbHg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0ENhJJhba8Xwj_cVzNKGDUQriia_Q=JWTXpztb6ic8rg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEY8wq4QEO1rtaNdjHXR6-b3Cgi7pfSWk7M8khVi0MHCiVOBzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:17:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgUNYqYm7d4Rv+f0rBa=nSuqwmZ6_REBS7M-+Wea+za0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1W7uVI-0002hx-5M
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics
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: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:18:05 -0000
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for an error field.
Agree, I think we need a way for client applications to interpret the response.
> Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when it
> receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that?
In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:
acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the
transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).
--
Pieter
|
