From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
Cc: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach•de>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:53:14 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2ng9vGMmfFK95A1jBK-FotDL-fA1oOt-=zosCPaug-rQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0HVJ7Uzow1=4-20LnejURqO5uo16H43uhL=TtNfzhAxQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1239 bytes --]
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> 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.
>
If the wallet software is doing automatic CoinJoin (for example), then
typically one or several of the other participants will broadcast the
transaction as soon as it is complete.
If the spec said that wallets must not broadcast until they receive a
PaymentACK (if a payment_url is specified), then you'd have to violate the
spec to do CoinJoin.
And even if you don't care about CoinJoin, not broadcasting the transaction
as soon as the inputs are signed adds implementation complexity (should you
retry if payment_url is unavailable? how many times? if you eventually
unlock the probably-not-quite-spent-yet inputs, should you double-spend
them to yourself just in case the merchant eventually gets around to
broadcasting the transaction, or should you just unlock them and squirrel
away the failed Payment so if the merchant does eventually broadcast you
have a record of why the coins were spent).
--
--
Gavin Andresen
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1651 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-28 12:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-26 21:56 Andreas Schildbach
2014-01-27 14:54 ` Gavin Andresen
2014-01-27 15:20 ` Andreas Schildbach
2014-01-27 15:52 ` Mike Hearn
2014-01-27 22:03 ` Kevin Greene
2014-01-27 22:17 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-01-27 22:39 ` Kevin Greene
2014-01-28 11:42 ` Mike Hearn
2014-01-28 12:53 ` Gavin Andresen [this message]
2014-01-28 13:09 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-01-28 13:24 ` Mike Hearn
2014-01-28 17:23 ` Peter Todd
2014-01-28 17:33 ` Mike Hearn
2014-01-28 21:12 ` Peter Todd
2014-01-30 14:51 ` Jeff Garzik
2014-01-30 14:58 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-01-30 15:01 ` Mike Hearn
2014-01-30 15:06 ` Gavin Andresen
2014-01-30 15:16 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-01-30 20:16 ` Jeremy Spilman
2014-01-31 4:16 ` Chuck
2014-01-31 16:21 ` Christophe Biocca
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='CABsx9T2ng9vGMmfFK95A1jBK-FotDL-fA1oOt-=zosCPaug-rQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=gavinandresen@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=andreas@schildbach$(echo .)de \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
/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