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
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1W874P-0004ok-Uq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:43:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.169; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f169.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W874K-0007p2-B9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:43:09 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wo20so266455obc.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:42:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.123.10 with SMTP id lw10mr792542oeb.24.1390909378911;
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:42:58 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.99.112 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:42:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAEY8wq6n_27Y2N7fVw9uJkfiiYqi6JkTwO0q03_J7tUeBhdQYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <lc409d$4mf$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CABsx9T1Y3sO6eS54wsj377BL4rGoghx1uDzD+SY3tTgc1PPbHg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0ENhJJhba8Xwj_cVzNKGDUQriia_Q=JWTXpztb6ic8rg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEY8wq4QEO1rtaNdjHXR6-b3Cgi7pfSWk7M8khVi0MHCiVOBzQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgUNYqYm7d4Rv+f0rBa=nSuqwmZ6_REBS7M-+Wea+za0g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEY8wq6n_27Y2N7fVw9uJkfiiYqi6JkTwO0q03_J7tUeBhdQYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:42:58 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4c6HQAf0hAhwkt0-tMa1VgceASM
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0HVJ7Uzow1=4-20LnejURqO5uo16H43uhL=TtNfzhAxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d49ce71e2ae04f106539b
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: 1W874K-0007p2-B9
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics
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: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:43:10 -0000
--047d7b5d49ce71e2ae04f106539b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Yeah, that's the interpretation I think we should go with for now. There
was a reason why this isn't specified and I forgot what it was - some
inability to come to agreement on when to broadcast vs when to submit via
HTTP, I think.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when
> it
> >> receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that?
> >
> > In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:
> > acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the
> > transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).
>
> Ok, so if there is no
> payment
> _url specified in the PaymentRequest, then the wallet is responsible for
> broadcasting
> the transaction to the bitcoin network
> .
> Otherwise, the wallet should
> rely on the merchant server to broadcast.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > +1 for an error field.
>>
>> Agree, I think we need a way for client applications to interpret the
>> response.
>>
>> > Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when
>> it
>> > receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that?
>>
>> In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:
>> acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the
>> transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Pieter
>>
>
>
--047d7b5d49ce71e2ae04f106539b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Yeah, that's the interpretation I think we should go w=
ith for now. There was a reason why this isn't specified and I forgot w=
hat it was - some inability to come to agreement on when to broadcast vs wh=
en to submit via HTTP, I think.<div>
<br></div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Kevin Greene <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:kgreenek@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">kgreen=
ek@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"im"><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_default"><div><font color=3D"#000000">>> Should the wallet=
broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when it<br>
>> receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do=
that?<br>
></font></div><span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">> In my opinion, th=
at should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:</span><br style=3D"co=
lor:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">> acknowledgement=
that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the</span><br style=3D"=
color:rgb(34,34,34)">
<span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">> transaction confirmed (to the exte=
nt possible, of course).</span><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></d=
iv></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><span style=3D"color:rgb(51,102,102)">O=
k, so if there is no <div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"color:rgb(51,102=
,102);display:inline">
payment</div>_url specified in the PaymentRequest, then the wallet is respo=
nsible for broadcasting<div class=3D"im"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=
=3D"color:rgb(51,102,102);display:inline"> the transaction to the bitcoin n=
etwork</div>
</div></span><span style=3D"color:rgb(51,102,102)">.<div class=3D"gmail_def=
ault" style=3D"color:rgb(51,102,102);display:inline">
</div>Otherwise, the wallet should </span><div class=3D"gmail_default" sty=
le=3D"color:rgb(51,102,102);display:inline">
rely on the merchant server to broadcast.</div></div><div><div class=3D"h5"=
><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><span style=3D"color:rgb(51,102,102)"></span></=
div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><font color=3D"#336666"><br></font><br><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote">
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.=
com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div>On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene <<a=
href=3D"mailto:kgreenek@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">kgreenek@gmail.com</a=
>> wrote:<br>
> +1 for an error field.<br>
<br>
</div>Agree, I think we need a way for client applications to interpret the=
response.<br>
<div><br>
> Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network whe=
n it<br>
> receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do tha=
t?<br>
<br>
</div>In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK=
:<br>
acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the<br>
transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).</blockquote><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">
<span><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Pieter<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--047d7b5d49ce71e2ae04f106539b--
|
