Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W8wKP-0000yg-Nk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:27:05 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.172; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1W8t55-0000iE-Dg for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:59:06 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id e14so3439119iej.3 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:58:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.142.129 with SMTP id s1mr10662172icu.30.1391093936588; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:58:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.100.10 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:58:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:58:56 +0100 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Jeff Garzik 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: 1W8t55-0000iE-Dg Cc: Andreas Schildbach , Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:27:06 -0000 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene wrote: >> > 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). > > Is this truly the intent? That the merchant/processor takes full > responsibility for getting the TX confirmed? Confirmed is probably the wrong word. But IMHO (not how it's currently worded), the merchant should take that responsibility after delivering a PaymentACK. This means the client does not need to stay online anymore. More importantly, it removes the requirement for the P2P network to function as a reliable sender->receiver communication channel (and reduces it to a broadcast medium to get transactions to miners). -- Pieter