Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics

From: Pieter Wuille <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:58:56 +0100

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jeff Garzik <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Pieter Wuille <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene <[email-masked]> 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).
>
> Is this truly the intent?  That the merchant/processor takes full
> responsibility for getting the TX confirmed?

Confirmed is probably the wrong word. But IMHO (not how it's currently
worded), the merchant should take that responsibility after delivering
a PaymentACK. This means the client does not need to stay online
anymore. More importantly, it removes the requirement for the P2P
network to function as a reliable sender->receiver communication
channel (and reduces it to a broadcast medium to get transactions to
miners).

-- 
Pieter