From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:36:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121127113612.GA25418@vps7135.xlshosting.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <626D0E73-1111-4380-AABE-6C8C65F2FFCC@ceptacle.com>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:42:01AM +0100, Michael Gronager wrote:
> >
> > The SignedReceipt message is useful in the sense that it shows
> > confirmation by the merchant, but if you don't get one, you can still
> > prove you paid the invoice. So from this perspective perhaps
> > SignedReceipt should be renamed to Acceptance or something like that,
> > and then the spec should call out that a signed invoice plus accepted
> > Bitcoin transactions is mathematically a proof of purchase.
>
> Which is why I find the "SignedReceipt" somewhat superfluous. If you implement a payment system, like bit-pay/wallet you are likely to double that through some sort of e-mail receipt anyway.
Gavin's proposal differs in this from my original proposal, where I
exactly *didn't* want to couple the receipt with the acceptance of
the Bitcoin transaction.
If a merchant/payment processor is willing to take the risk of zero or
low confirmation transactions (because they are insured against it,
for example), they were allowed to reply "accepted" immediately, and
this would be a permanent proof of payment, even if the actual Bitcoin
transaction that backs it gets reverted.
For that reason, I also had a separate "pending" state, which means the
receiver isn't willing to just accept the current state as irrevocably
paid. In this case, the sender was allowed to retry until the receipt
sayd "accepted" or "rejected".
The whole point was to avoid that customers/merchants would have to
deal with the uncertainty involved in Bitcoin transaction. At some
point, someone is going to accept the transaction (whether that is at
0 or at 120 confirmations), and acceptance will at the higher level
be considered a boolean anyway - not some "probably, unless reorg".
--
Pieter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-27 11:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-26 22:37 Gavin Andresen
2012-11-26 23:02 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-26 23:13 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-26 23:16 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-26 23:19 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-26 23:27 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-26 23:32 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-11-26 23:44 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-27 0:16 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-11-27 0:26 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 0:45 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-27 1:09 ` Gavin
2012-11-27 8:44 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 0:44 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-26 23:38 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-26 23:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-11-27 0:02 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-27 0:31 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-27 0:37 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-27 2:16 ` Walter Stanish
2012-11-27 2:47 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-11-27 3:16 ` Walter Stanish
2012-11-27 3:29 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-27 3:31 ` Walter Stanish
2012-11-27 3:54 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-27 4:17 ` Walter Stanish
2012-11-27 8:43 ` Michael Gronager
2012-11-27 10:23 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 10:42 ` Michael Gronager
2012-11-27 11:36 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2012-11-27 11:46 ` Michael Gronager
2012-11-27 12:03 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 12:39 ` Michael Gronager
2012-11-27 14:05 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-27 14:26 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-28 13:55 ` Walter Stanish
2012-11-27 17:03 ` Andy Parkins
2012-11-27 17:14 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 17:26 ` Andy Parkins
2012-11-27 18:16 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 21:39 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-28 10:43 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-28 12:57 ` Peter Todd
2012-11-28 14:09 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-28 8:33 ` Peter Todd
2012-11-28 23:36 ` Roy Badami
2012-11-29 0:30 ` Watson Ladd
2012-11-29 8:16 ` slush
2012-11-29 16:11 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-29 17:07 ` Roy Badami
2012-11-29 17:30 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-29 17:31 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-29 18:53 ` Roy Badami
2012-12-01 19:25 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-03 19:35 ` Mike Koss
2012-12-03 20:59 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-03 21:28 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-03 22:26 ` Roy Badami
2012-12-03 22:34 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-12-03 22:48 ` Roy Badami
2012-12-16 21:15 ` Melvin Carvalho
2012-12-17 2:18 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-12-17 8:24 ` Melvin Carvalho
2012-12-17 9:19 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-17 9:31 ` Gary Rowe
2012-12-17 11:23 ` Melvin Carvalho
2012-12-17 17:57 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-20 16:53 ` Stephen Pair
2012-12-20 17:43 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-20 19:32 ` Stephen Pair
2012-12-21 17:05 ` Stephen Pair
2012-12-24 0:38 ` Elden Tyrell
2012-12-04 17:06 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-05 19:34 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-06 6:31 ` Andreas Petersson
2012-12-06 8:53 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-06 16:56 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-06 17:55 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-06 19:13 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-07 10:45 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-07 11:01 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-07 16:19 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-07 16:27 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-06 18:13 ` Alan Reiner
[not found] ` <CALf2ePx5jS@mail.gmail.com>
2014-09-17 19:28 ` Vezalke
2012-12-03 21:42 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-12-23 2:33 ` Mark Friedenbach
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121127113612.GA25418@vps7135.xlshosting.net \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=gronager@ceptacle$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox