1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
|
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 <chuck+bitcoindev@borboggle.com>) id 1W8paj-0007s3-3t
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:15:29 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from borboggle.com ([69.164.197.78] helo=mail.borboggle.com)
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1W8pah-0005Eh-Cv for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:15:29 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.72] (unknown [180.183.159.154])
by mail.borboggle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13A85FAC7;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:26:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <52EA343E.4010208@borboggle.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:15:10 +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>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0soR0xRqW=vsKaL__HRuWstA5vW=6_JkGZm=8wkm8Q3g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1W8pah-0005Eh-Cv
Cc: Bitcoin-Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70 message delivery reliability
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: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:15:29 -0000
Hi Mike. Thanks for replying.
On 1/30/2014 5:49 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Both Bitcoin Core and bitcoinj are about to ship with the protocol
> as-is, so any changes from this point on have to be backwards compatible.
Then I think it's critically important to talk about failure situations
now, rather than trying to patch on solutions later; it's going to be
very hard to wedge/"hack" in fixes for potential problems when they
could be addressed now with minor changes.
> Let's get some practical experience with what we've got so far. We can
> evolve PaymentRequest/Payment/PaymentACK in the right direction with
> backwards compatible upgrades, I am hoping.
I think what I'm trying to discuss or find out here is whether the
current PP description is defunct or incomplete in some manner, thus
making any experience we gain from the current implementation moot.
It seems the largest hole in the implementation is delivery of the
Payment message, but I'm happy to accept that maybe I'm just missing
something. A malicious merchant could claim he never received the
Payment message, or a faulty network connection could cause the message
to never be delivered. In arbitration the merchant could argue the
transactions seen on the network were insufficient.
To me, this could be a problem.
Cheers,
Chuck
|
