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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
id 1WUJQf-0007vi-99 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:21:53 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org
designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)
client-ip=80.91.229.3;
envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org;
helo=plane.gmane.org;
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WUJQd-0006ET-Pn
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:21:53 +0000
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
id 1WUJQP-0000Go-Ln for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 30 Mar 2014 19:21:37 +0200
Received: from e179065109.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.179.65.109])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 30 Mar 2014 19:21:37 +0200
Received: from andreas by e179065109.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1
(Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 30 Mar 2014 19:21:37 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 19:21:26 +0200
Message-ID: <lh9jqm$q77$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CANEZrP0AwR3WgHfwYWcrC9Z_MHPDwymWXAQwp7D8XZ+o2FsK8g@mail.gmail.com> <lh3m7i$v18$1@ger.gmane.org> <CANEZrP3zBFs=JpJi6eazTvrTaRX6XCJLu-zrraE6bezYW7b9pQ@mail.gmail.com> <lh49pp$4bc$1@ger.gmane.org>
<5335BD17.6050408@plan99.net> <lh4nma$h3e$1@ger.gmane.org> <20140329092721.GG62995@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
<CANEZrP3+-kJiO+pCAdEGtzebcR65eAnTjuFQgQPbzAmh6v-WyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: e179065109.adsl.alicedsl.de
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3+-kJiO+pCAdEGtzebcR65eAnTjuFQgQPbzAmh6v-WyQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature,
domain signs all mail
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1WUJQd-0006ET-Pn
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: <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: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:21:53 -0000
I'd prefer 3 months to 2 just because a quarter of year is a more common
timespan.
But of course its just paint shedding, so 2 sounds good for me too (-:
On 03/29/2014 02:29 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> So how about we say two months? That way it's easy for merchants to
> comply with the EU DSD and we keep RAM usage in check until we come up
> with a more sophisticated refund scheme.
>
> There's another issue with BIP 70 and refunds that I noticed. The
> PaymentRequest doesn't specify whether refunds are possible. So wallets
> have to either never submit refund data, or always submit it even if it
> makes no sense. Because setting things up to get refunds has a non-zero
> cost for the sender, it'd help if we could optimise it away for
> merchants that simply refuse to issue refunds for whatever reason.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk
> <mailto:roy@gnomon.org.uk>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:56:57PM +0100, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
> > On 03/28/2014 07:19 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> >
> > >> Ok, why don't fix this in the spec for now, by defining a fixed
> expiry
> > >> time. In the EU, most products are covered by a 2 years
> warranty, so it
> > >> seems appropriate to pick 2.5 years (30 months) -- allowing for
> some
> > >> time to ship the product back and forth.
> > >
> > > Yeah I was thinking something like that on the walk home. But 2
> years is
> > > a long time. Do we have enough RAM for that?
> >
> > It depends on usage stats, script size, etc...
> >
> > > Plus warranties usually
> > > result in the defective goods being replaced rather than a monetary
> > > refund, right?
> >
> > Usually yes. The next smaller "unit of time" in Germany would be two
> > weeks, the so-called "Fernabsatzgesetz". It allows you to send back
> > mail-orders and usually you want the money back. Don't know if
> that made
> > it into EU law or how it applies to other countries.
>
> It's EU law, but the Distance Selling Directive only says "at least
> seven days", so the exact period probably varies by country (in the UK
> it is 7 days).
>
> But the clock only starts ticking when you receive the goods, and the
> Distance Selling Directive allows the supplier 30 days "to execute the
> order" (I *think* the 30 days always has to include shipping, because
> for consumer contracts title doesn't pass until the goods are
> delivered, so the order wouldn't be considered complete until then).
>
> So I think latest possible deadline for returning the goods for refund
> could be up to 30 days to execute the order plus "at least 7 days"
> (with some countries allowing more). Plus, conceivably, shipping
> time, if some member states have chosen to interpret the 30 day
> execution differently.
>
> So I think this adds up to "a couple of months, give or take". In
> practice, though, even a couple of months is a bit on the short time.
> What if the goods are delayed. How many people have had miner orders
> outstanding for the best part of a year?
>
> roy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
