summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/f2/2b5e9e946c4c0eaeb39215bea49cee60188b99
blob: 3400157a7912c924d72ab96edc31f63e276cfb21 (plain)
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
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 <roy@gnomon.org.uk>) id 1V7BIU-0005c2-Io
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:29:34 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk
	designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk;
	helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; 
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk ([93.93.131.22])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1V7BIF-0006nr-4Z
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:29:34 +0000
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk (localhost.gnomon.org.uk [127.0.0.1])
	by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r77LSwnk045094
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:29:04 +0100 (BST)
	(envelope-from roy@darla.gnomon.org.uk)
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at darla.gnomon.org.uk
Received: (from roy@localhost)
	by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.1/Submit) id r77LSwed045093;
	Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:28:58 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from roy)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:28:58 +0100
From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130807212858.GN16713@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBhb3WOYnWRc020QbGwE0W4XeWWmXXTqYyAqrtB7h0+b8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0o2BN+UyZt-TYcEXX_U0ztP3Rq3+arr_2C1MPEtU_dUg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0o2BN+UyZt-TYcEXX_U0ztP3Rq3+arr_2C1MPEtU_dUg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain 0.0 TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED    Exceeded time limit / deadline
X-Headers-End: 1V7BIF-0006nr-4Z
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72
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: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:29:34 -0000

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 07:10:05AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: should the customer's machine not broadcast the transaction:

If we're going to allow payments to fail without being broadcast (but
where the wallet can't in general prove that the receiver hasn't seen
the transaction) then I would argue that it becomes highly desirable
that the wallet invalidates the transaction at the earliest
opportunity by spending the outputs in a pay-to-self transaction.

Otherwise malicious receivers, or temporary failures, could result in
the user being told that the transfer didn't happen, but then the
coins actually leaving the wallet anyway a short time later.

roy