From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1V7BIU-0005c2-Io for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:29:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk; helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk ([93.93.131.22]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1V7BIF-0006nr-4Z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:29:34 +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 r77LSwnk045094 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:29:04 +0100 (BST) (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 r77LSwed045093; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:28:58 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from roy) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:28:58 +0100 From: Roy Badami To: Gavin Andresen Message-ID: <20130807212858.GN16713@giles.gnomon.org.uk> References: 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: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED Exceeded time limit / deadline X-Headers-End: 1V7BIF-0006nr-4Z Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72 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: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:29:34 -0000 On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 07:10:05AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote: > RE: should the customer's machine not broadcast the transaction: If we're going to allow payments to fail without being broadcast (but where the wallet can't in general prove that the receiver hasn't seen the transaction) then I would argue that it becomes highly desirable that the wallet invalidates the transaction at the earliest opportunity by spending the outputs in a pay-to-self transaction. Otherwise malicious receivers, or temporary failures, could result in the user being told that the transfer didn't happen, but then the coins actually leaving the wallet anyway a short time later. roy