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 1W7uVJ-0007f1-3u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:18:05 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1W7uVI-0002hx-5M for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:18:05 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id e14so6693584iej.18 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:17:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.43.134 with SMTP id w6mr20017787igl.20.1390861078847; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:17:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.100.10 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:17:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:17:58 +0100 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Kevin Greene Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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: 1W7uVI-0002hx-5M Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Andreas Schildbach Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics 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: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:18:05 -0000 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene 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