Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WTWOf-0003kK-Tq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:00:33 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.176; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f176.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WTWOf-0007Rr-43 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:00:33 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id wp18so5776620obc.7 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:00:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.196.3 with SMTP id ii3mr6634376obc.11.1396011627740; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.231 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:00:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <47379042-C1B6-4E22-8FF7-4EE9FDC095AC@bitsofproof.com> References: <122FC5AD-2117-4CAF-817F-45B00F57D549@bitsofproof.com> <48ED312A-A1F9-4081-9718-04DD45804313@bitsofproof.com> <47379042-C1B6-4E22-8FF7-4EE9FDC095AC@bitsofproof.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:00:27 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: gpAg67ngvXy1edSd0i90fr7iCWI Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Tamas Blummer Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015383e42c831404f5aa499c X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WTWOf-0007Rr-43 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Andreas Schildbach Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 70 refund field 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: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:00:34 -0000 --089e015383e42c831404f5aa499c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > What is too abstract in a contact list ? If the payment comes with a tag > like refund the UI could display as such and if it comes with e.g. VAT then > that. > How is this any different? The tag in this case is the address and the payment is being delivered by the block chain (direct submission for user->merchant is easier than merchant->user) so we can't stuff extra data anywhere else. Then the UI knows it was a refund payment and not for anything else. I don't see the relevance of VAT here. --089e015383e42c831404f5aa499c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What is= too abstract in a contact list ? If the payment comes with a tag like refu= nd the UI could display as such and if it comes with e.g. VAT then that.=C2= =A0

How is this a= ny different? The tag in this case is the address and the payment is being = delivered by the block chain (direct submission for user->merchant is ea= sier than merchant->user) so we can't stuff extra data anywhere else= . Then the UI knows it was a refund payment and not for anything else.

I don't= see the relevance of VAT here.
--089e015383e42c831404f5aa499c--