From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
To: Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>,
Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach•de>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:42:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0HVJ7Uzow1=4-20LnejURqO5uo16H43uhL=TtNfzhAxQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEY8wq6n_27Y2N7fVw9uJkfiiYqi6JkTwO0q03_J7tUeBhdQYA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1627 bytes --]
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.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail•com> wrote:
> >> Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when
> it
> >> receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that?
> >
> > In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:
> > acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the
> > transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).
>
> Ok, so if there is no
> payment
> _url specified in the PaymentRequest, then the wallet is responsible for
> broadcasting
> the transaction to the bitcoin network
> .
> Otherwise, the wallet should
> rely on the merchant server to broadcast.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail•com>
>> wrote:
>> > +1 for an error field.
>>
>> Agree, I think we need a way for client applications to interpret the
>> response.
>>
>> > Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when
>> it
>> > receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that?
>>
>> In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:
>> acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the
>> transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Pieter
>>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3616 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-28 11:43 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 [this message]
2014-01-28 12:53 ` Gavin Andresen
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='CANEZrP0HVJ7Uzow1=4-20LnejURqO5uo16H43uhL=TtNfzhAxQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
--cc=andreas@schildbach$(echo .)de \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=kgreenek@gmail$(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