public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@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 12:23:49 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140128172349.GA14168@savin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2ng9vGMmfFK95A1jBK-FotDL-fA1oOt-=zosCPaug-rQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2288 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:53:14AM -0500, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
> If the wallet software is doing automatic CoinJoin (for example), then
> typically one or several of the other participants will broadcast the
> transaction as soon as it is complete.
> 
> If the spec said that wallets must not broadcast until they receive a
> PaymentACK (if a payment_url is specified), then you'd have to violate the
> spec to do CoinJoin.
> 
> And even if you don't care about CoinJoin, not broadcasting the transaction
> as soon as the inputs are signed adds implementation complexity (should you
> retry if payment_url is unavailable? how many times? if you eventually
> unlock the probably-not-quite-spent-yet inputs, should you double-spend
> them to yourself just in case the merchant eventually gets around to
> broadcasting the transaction, or should you just unlock them and squirrel
> away the failed Payment so if the merchant does eventually broadcast you
> have a record of why the coins were spent).

Also users don't have infinite unspent txouts in their wallets - if they
need to make two payments in a row and run out their wallet software is
(currently) going to spend the change txout and either be forced to
broadcast both transactions anyway, or the second payment-protocol-using
recipient will do so on their behalf. (in the future they might also do
a replacement tx replacing the first with a single tx paying both to
save on fees, again with the same problem)

Anyway what you want is payment atomicity: the customer losing control
of the funds must be atomic with respect to the payment going through.
From that point of view it's unfortunate that Payment message contains
refund_to, memo, etc. That information should have been provided to the
merchant prior to them providing the list of addresses to pay.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000085c725a905444d271c56fdee4e4ec7f27bdb2e777c872925

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 685 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-01-28 17:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-01-26 21:56 [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics 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
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 [this message]
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=20140128172349.GA14168@savin \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=andreas@schildbach.de \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=gavinandresen@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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