From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Te7ao-0007GL-7N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:08:06 +0000 Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk ([93.93.131.22]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Te7ag-0001B2-S0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:08:06 +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 qATH7DfG022901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:07:19 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 qATH7D8R022900; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:07:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from roy) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:07:13 -0500 From: Roy Badami To: Gavin Andresen Message-ID: <20121129170713.GD6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> References: <20121128233619.GA6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.8 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Te7ag-0001B2-S0 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:08:06 -0000 I'd still like to understand the rationale for having the merchant broadcast the transaction - it seems to add complexity and create edge cases. How about this as an alternative proposal: The buyer's client prepares the transaction and computes its txid. It then sends a ValidatePurchase message to the merchant containing the proposed Outputs and a copy of the merchant_data along with the txid. Assuming the proposed payment is accepted as valid by the merchant, the buyer's client simply broadcasts the pre-prepared transaction in the normal way, and it is the merchant's responsibility to watch for this transaction to arrive over the p2p network/blockchain to complete the purchase. (So if the merchant rejects the purchase at the ValidatePurchase stage, they never get to see the transaction that the buyer prepared, and there's therefore no need for a send-to-self to cancel it.) An optional RequestReceipt message (perhaps containing the merchant_data and txid) can be sent by the client after the transaction has been broadcast - but by making this explicitly optional it forces the merchant to rely on seeing the bitcoin transaction to 'commit' the payment and not on the RequestReceipt message. As far as I can see this proposal has no edge cases where the buyer and merchant have differing ideas as to whether the transaction has 'comitted' - or at least, no more edge cases than the standard bitcoin protocol has. roy