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 1W33tu-0003U9-FD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:19:26 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.194]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1W33tt-0003Bp-0L for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:19:26 +0000 Received: from netbook (c107-70.i07-27.onvol.net [92.251.107.70]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MTSbX-1VtTeP1dBf-00RrG1; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:18:47 -0500 Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 492742E283F; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:18:41 +0100 (CET) Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:18:38 +0100 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:18:38 +0100 From: Adam Back To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: <20140114131838.GA10516@netbook.cypherspace.org> References: <20140114114134.GA9838@netbook.cypherspace.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140114114134.GA9838@netbook.cypherspace.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Hashcash: 1:20:140114:mike@plan99.net::ThGeo/JXKaOj9wvF:007KNh X-Hashcash: 1:20:140114:andreas@schildbach.de::QoSOX3S2gLeTzKnl:0000000000000000 0000000000000000000000004Eqq X-Hashcash: 1:20:140114:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::QxuPdi/EJlsa5 pBB:000000000000000000003yOY X-Hashcash: 1:20:140114:adam@cypherspace.org::cYLVISS7GVdnjQz1:00000000000000000 0000000000000000000000001BBZ X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:rgNtnTtVGmbU7TbJXIkFf1x3EwksYIBnhpPFAj90uBT YdlR+xoUkqh8MdXy6XEDURHKBCUG5iSddc6d6+1haA19VZrwUl WI8YFnpkvdRKaReVI3+l2KeroPxds2S1Q4L8Ueexh6DJT9g0QT RxpDQn1ftzDEfHBAiWUi88LBUGLgDhmKiQdydM9jXYwNSzLnNN 3DAdkZUewAQ2xOlAcfJwjZnmdACA4fPx//pTJFlLn0Qj7r6Gdx AGjjoMDCNpJoabwcSHwHkyEE+y1H8Raha1+2iWPvxIpnOQyV6B 5K74/3pPmk2ciWk819iPVGkYSmypd6DyLEm0vsbDsEG3NDxBan +c72OQFhAYPOqPP//BlrOiB5gtVQnxEECvmc9Z9t8 X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [74.208.4.194 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1W33tt-0003Bp-0L Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Andreas Schildbach Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment protocol and reliable Payment messages 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: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:19:26 -0000 Maybe even pay to (address derived from) contract hash has a hole: it assumes the merchant cashes the funds (or cashes then reimburses via the refund address). There is another rational (though abusive) move for the merchant: let the buyers funds sit in limbo. Then the buyer has the onus to go into disupte, maybe the seller is anonymous, in another country, or the cost of dispute resolution more than the value lost, and anyway its not very smart-contract like. It might be better if the buyer has time-stamped evidence of having sent the funds to the merchant, and evidence of non-collection of funds by the merchant (by omission from the block chain). Adam