summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/b0/5936d288389725cffec7e96d535d6fd44c87f0
blob: 29d0c162c15a9aa75cb803c5a3e8fa14014fd640 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <roy@gnomon.org.uk>) id 1Te9F9-000834-PS
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:53:51 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk
	designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk;
	helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; 
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk ([93.93.131.22])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Te9F3-0000C7-DX
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:53:51 +0000
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk (localhost.gnomon.org.uk [127.0.0.1])
	by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qATIrVWf023962
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:53:36 GMT (envelope-from roy@darla.gnomon.org.uk)
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at darla.gnomon.org.uk
Received: (from roy@localhost)
	by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.1/Submit) id qATIrUGd023960;
	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:53:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from roy)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:53:30 -0500
From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>, g@gnomon.org.uk
Message-ID: <20121129185330.GE6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121128233619.GA6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CABsx9T09FYf2RTaMpmujt3qwTFc2JgnREH_7Hyk2mnCgb3CvAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121129170713.GD6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CANEZrP233CytLs3PWBQ1TyuBTMv4sLGJkEMeGWYq5xRi+iLKew@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP233CytLs3PWBQ1TyuBTMv4sLGJkEMeGWYq5xRi+iLKew@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain 0.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Te9F3-0000C7-DX
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
 Invoices/Payments/Receipts
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, 29 Nov 2012 18:53:52 -0000

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 06:31:24PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > I'd still like to understand the rationale for having the merchant
> > broadcast the transaction
> 
> There are several reasons for this:

[snip]

All good reasons, thanks for the explanation.

Though I still like my idea of a ValidatePurchase message that allows
a buyer to ask a merchant "would you accept this payment?" without
actually supplying a signed transaction.  Make it optional if you care
about minimising the number of round trips, e.g. for fast NFC
payments.

Having such a message reduces the extent to which you need to trust
the merchant not to spend a transaction that they've rejected.  (And
in the non-Internet connected case this is particularly useful since
the client won't have the ability to broadcast a pay-to-self
transaction.)

roy