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
|
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 <gronager@ceptacle.com>) id 1TdJcU-000882-2w
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:46:30 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from 2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk ([90.184.5.129]
helo=mail.ceptacle.com)
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1TdJcO-0006t0-MB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:46:30 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63E426C59C0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:46:18 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceptacle.com
Received: from mail.ceptacle.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (server.ceptacle.private [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024) with ESMTP id Ct7vchoVViKL
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:46:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [109.105.106.200] (unknown [109.105.106.200])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3D4626C59B3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:46:18 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121127113612.GA25418@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:46:17 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E16289E3-C614-43EC-B713-128FC149BB5C@ceptacle.com>
References: <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>
<CANEZrP1u0-JNf1nd4NsZhrqC=M0Yx3J6cTYA=bzKm8CTucd85w@mail.gmail.com>
<626D0E73-1111-4380-AABE-6C8C65F2FFCC@ceptacle.com>
<20121127113612.GA25418@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1TdJcO-0006t0-MB
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 11:46:30 -0000
>=20
> If a merchant/payment processor is willing to take the risk of zero or
> low confirmation transactions (because they are insured against it,
> for example), they were allowed to reply "accepted" immediately, and
> this would be a permanent proof of payment, even if the actual Bitcoin
> transaction that backs it gets reverted.
I guess that moves the discussion from developers to lawyers ;) Even =
though you send a signed receipt, if you can proof you didn't get the =
money, you will never be expected to deliver the goods. (and you can =
even write that in the the receipt ...)
So the SignedReceipt is legally not worth the bits it is composed of, =
hence I don't see the point in supporting it.
If you are selling atoms you can usually wait for N confirmations (even =
though you start shipping I guess you can recall a parcel within 144 =
blocks). If you are selling bits (like access to a site), you can revoke =
that access once you discover the transaction did not go through. So I =
can't find a use case where a Signed Receipt in the proposed form is =
advantageous.
/M=
|
