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.




On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when it
>> receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that?
>
> In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:
> acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the
> transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).

Ok, so if there is no
payment
_url specified in the PaymentRequest, then the wallet is responsible for broadcasting
the transaction to the bitcoin network
.
Otherwise, the wallet should
rely on the merchant server to broadcast.


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for an error field.

Agree, I think we need a way for client applications to interpret the response.

> Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when it
> receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that?

In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:
acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the
transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).


--
Pieter