Message-ID: <52EA3AC0.5090709@borboggle.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:42:56 +0700
From: Chuck <chuck+bitcoindev@borboggle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
References: <52E9E787.8080304@borboggle.com>	<CANEZrP0soR0xRqW=vsKaL__HRuWstA5vW=6_JkGZm=8wkm8Q3g@mail.gmail.com>	<52EA343E.4010208@borboggle.com>
	<CANEZrP2JMGdcCa_6p-vmLJ3yO=GVBZXA39VLwiPRUbDu2zeH5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2JMGdcCa_6p-vmLJ3yO=GVBZXA39VLwiPRUbDu2zeH5w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bitcoin-Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70 message delivery reliability
Precedence: list

On 1/30/2014 6:31 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> The arbitrator would presumably have some rules about what is or isn't 
> an acceptable form of payment.
Do you think this puts unnecessary trust into a third party?  If the 
merchant instead signed and agreed to the unsigned transactions before 
they were broadcast (as in my OP), these arbitration concerns disappear.

> HTTP has response codes for submission of the Payment message. We 
> could add signing to PaymentACK and other things in future, if that 
> turns out to be insufficient in practice.
HTTP isn't the only message delivery mechanism.  Merchants can also lie: 
reply with 200 OK and an empty body.  Or, reply with 404 not found and 
broadcast transactions anyway.

Cheers,

Chuck