Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.160.44 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.160.44;
	envelope-from=christophe.biocca@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pb0-f44.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5kemthp1y7py3inyyquy78cf.1391459458968@email.android.com>
References: <5kemthp1y7py3inyyquy78cf.1391459458968@email.android.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:37:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CANOOu=_3hrWGgx7+nkXOOJmU72_CL4f3OC+xkGwNxnd+jFNU=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocca@gmail.com>
To: "Tim Tuxworth Founder Go-taxi.biz" <tim@go-taxi.biz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: Canceling Payments
Precedence: list

It's not limited to HTTP. I was pointing out that unsolicited
merchant-to-consumer messages don't work on HTTP (and a lot of other
situations), and so you can't add a need for it to the payment
protocol (since it wouldn't be usable in the majority of cases).

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Tim Tuxworth Founder Go-taxi.biz
<tim@go-taxi.biz> wrote:
> Is BIP70 limited to http only?
>
> What about face to face scenarios, or realtime like ticket sales or
> gambling, and socket and/or bluetooth type connections?
>
> Tim Tuxworth
> Founder Go-Taxi.biz
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Christophe Biocca
> Date:2014/02/03 10:49 AM (GMT-08:00)
> To: Tim Tuxworth
> Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: Canceling Payments
>
> Over http, the merchant doesn't have the ability to reach out to the
> consumer's bitcoin wallet on their own. So sending "Cancel Payment
> Request" to the user is impossible.
>
> If the customer doesn't want to send, nothing ever needs to happen. So
> sending a "Reject Payment Request" to the merchant is useless.
>
> The unhappy path scenario with Payment Requests (customer paid, but
> for whatever reason that payment is no longer valid) can be simply
> solved in 1 of 2 ways:
>
> If the merchant realizes the mistake, they can refund the money.
> If the customer realizes the problem, they can contact the merchant,
> provide the signed request, and ask the merchant to return the funds.
>
> What isn't covered?
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Tim Tuxworth <tim@go-taxi.biz> wrote:
>> The process described in BIP70 might be ok for a simple "happy path"
>> scenario, but what if things don't work so smoothly. I'm not talking
>> here about technical issues, but _very common_ business scenarios such as:
>>
>> e.g. Merchant cancels request before payment is sent, such as when:-
>> - the merchant realizes that they charged the wrong amount
>> - the merchant realizes that they send the payment request to the wrong
>> customer
>> ...
>>
>> e.g. the Merchant or Customer decides to cancel the transaction after
>> the payment request is sent because:-
>> - the customer decides to pay by some other mechanism like cash or
>> credit/debit
>> - the customer doesn't have sufficient funds and decides not to purchase
>> - the customer changes their mind and decides not to purchase
>> ...
>>
>> It strikes me that a "Cancel Payment Request" message is required
>> and a "Reject Payment Request" may also be required (or maybe use the
>> same message for both).
>>
>> Tim Tuxworth
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
>> Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
>> Read the Whitepaper.
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121051231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development