Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1Ww6lQ-0007eP-Ky for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:30:12 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org
	designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=80.91.229.3;
	envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org;
	helo=plane.gmane.org; 
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Ww6lO-0007r2-ST
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:30:12 +0000
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1Ww6lI-0003g9-0D for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:30:04 +0200
Received: from 93-35-10-132.ip52.fastwebnet.it ([93.35.10.132])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:30:03 +0200
Received: from lawrence by 93-35-10-132.ip52.fastwebnet.it with local (Gmexim
	0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:30:03 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Lawrence Nahum <lawrence@greenaddress.it>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:22:55 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <loom.20140615T111027-736@post.gmane.org>
References: <CAKrJrGOBSiY5V59eko6g796j3wh9V9ZLjPbyHeS5=zyX6j3Wdw@mail.gmail.com>
	<lnhgsk$va6$1@ger.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org
User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-Loom-IP: 93.35.10.132 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11;
	Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko)
	Chrome/35.0.1916.114 Safari/537.36)
X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--)
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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
	no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org]
	-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
X-Headers-End: 1Ww6lO-0007r2-ST
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol
	backwards compatible proto buffer extension
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: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:30:12 -0000

Andreas Schildbach <andreas <at> schildbach.de> writes:
 
> Just a quick comment:
> 
> The supports_instant field seems redundant to me. First, as per your
> spec, you can derive it from trusted_instant_providers. And second, why
> do you need it at all? Protobuf is designed so it will simply ignore
> fields you don't know. So you can just send the instant_* fields in the
> Payment message without harm.



Agreed, supports_instant is redundant and can/should/will go.

trusted_instant_providers on the other hand I think is needed.

Sometimes the providers will charge fees for instant.

While the software can ignore the fields, 
users may not want to pay for instant when the merchant may not accept it or 
care (even if it would not break the protocol it would still be a waste of 
fees)

Does it make sense? 

Not all transactions from GreenAddress provide double spend protection, there 
are additional checks on prevout that are normally not done when spending 
normally, etc