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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1W8tCL-00017x-P6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:06:33 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.49; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f49.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W8tCI-00016z-IA
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:06:33 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a1so6616792wgh.16
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:06:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.90.144 with SMTP id bw16mr9555406wjb.1.1391094383421;
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.10.197 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:06:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0MVbDnC0i+uT9Sahxk8ht9R5ztSJ-kOU5ERapeVibH9eg@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>
<CAJHLa0MVbDnC0i+uT9Sahxk8ht9R5ztSJ-kOU5ERapeVibH9eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:06:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1jAobC_p9oa_PX8M7Bo6Db3=oBhPuhp5CXVHqTRb=Hng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfcf35c92aff304f1316676
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1W8tCI-00016z-IA
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: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:06:34 -0000
--047d7bfcf35c92aff304f1316676
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> Is this truly the intent? That the merchant/processor takes full
> responsibility for getting the TX confirmed?
>
The intent is to give the customer a great experience. We could talk for
months about whether having the wallet broadcast the transaction as soon as
possible or having it wait for the merchant to respond with a PaymentACK is
better. But I think we should let wallets experiment with different ways of
doing it, and see what works best in practice.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--047d7bfcf35c92aff304f1316676
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m=
ailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>></spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=3D":243" style=3D"overflow:hidden">I=
s this truly the intent? =A0That the merchant/processor takes full<br>
responsibility for getting the TX confirmed?</div></blockquote></div><br>Th=
e intent is to give the customer a great experience. We could talk for mont=
hs about whether having the wallet broadcast the transaction as soon as pos=
sible or having it wait for the merchant to respond with a PaymentACK is be=
tter. But I think we should let wallets experiment with different ways of d=
oing it, and see what works best in practice.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Ga=
vin Andresen<br>
</div></div>
--047d7bfcf35c92aff304f1316676--
|
