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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TgfwY-0002Vp-KG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:13:06 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.175; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TgfwX-0002Hm-On for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:13:06 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id vb8so6832905obc.34 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 10:13:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.184.102 with SMTP id et6mr1567080obc.102.1354817580433; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 10:13:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.170.230 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:13:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121128233619.GA6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20121129170713.GD6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20121129185330.GE6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <50C03BDA.6010600@petersson.at> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:13:00 -0500 Message-ID: From: Alan Reiner To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444e8a59dffc004d0330ce4 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1TgfwX-0002Hm-On 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, 06 Dec 2012 18:13:06 -0000 --f46d0444e8a59dffc004d0330ce4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > When I say "pass around" I'm not thinking of users copying and pasting, > that would be a terrible user experience; all of that communication needs > to happen automatically behind the scenes. Lets tackle that after we've got > the simpler customer-pays-merchant flow working nicely > (funded-escrow-pays-merchant is a subset of that, anyway). I think that the "pass around" method needs to happen in addition to the methods of transparent protocols that occur behind the scenes. For one, there's a lot of CONOPs that need to be worked out by getting knowledgeable people using it, and providing feedback about how it could/should/will be used and how it could be improved. The pass-around method is simpler to implement and still usable by the types of users that will be using it in the beginning -- experts. Also, I see that for very large, important multi-sig tx/contracts/escrow, the "manual" method might be preferred -- much the same way many people prefer manual-transmission cars even though automatics are "easier" -- some people/organizations will want the control. I'm all for protocols that enable higher-level access to this functionality, I'm just saying there should be lower-level access, too. --f46d0444e8a59dffc004d0330ce4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Dec 6, 20= 12 at 11:56 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
When I say "pass around" I'm n= ot thinking of users copying and pasting, that would be a terrible user exp= erience; all of that communication needs to happen automatically behind the= scenes. Lets tackle that after we've got the simpler customer-pays-mer= chant flow working nicely (funded-escrow-pays-merchant is a subset of that,= anyway).


I think that the "pass around" method needs to happen in add= ition to the methods of transparent protocols that occur behind the scenes.= =A0For one, there's a lot of CONOPs that need to be worked out by gett= ing knowledgeable people using it, and providing feedback about how it coul= d/should/will be used and how it could be improved. =A0The pass-around meth= od is simpler to implement and still usable by the types of users that will= be using it in the beginning -- experts. =A0Also, I see that for very larg= e, important multi-sig tx/contracts/escrow, the "manual" method m= ight be preferred -- much the same way many people prefer manual-transmissi= on cars even though automatics are "easier" -- some people/organi= zations will want the control. =A0=A0

I'm all= for protocols that enable higher-level access to this functionality, I'= ;m just saying there should be lower-level access, too.


<= br>

--f46d0444e8a59dffc004d0330ce4--