From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W30Uo-0005IR-Hv for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:41:18 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1W30Um-0003oS-BT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:41:18 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W30Uf-0004Ev-F5 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:41:09 +0100 Received: from e179074100.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.179.74.100]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:41:09 +0100 Received: from andreas by e179074100.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:41:09 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:40:58 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: e179074100.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1W30Um-0003oS-BT 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 09:41:18 -0000 On 01/13/2014 06:56 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > I want to avoid the case where a transaction confirms, but the > associated payment is not delivered. If there is a reasonable chance > that this case occurs in normal operation, it means the payment > transmission cannot be relied upon. I was thinking about this some more. Generally I think you have a point. However, there is one case I'm worried about. Imagine you get a good offer (payment request) from a merchant. You would like to accept that offer, however the merchant has changed his mind. If you don't broadcast the payment to the blockchain, you won't have a chance to accept and legally bind the offer. The merchant will silently discard your payment messages. At some point, you will involve a judge. If you can present the payment request and the payment from the block chain, you're in a much better position than if you just present a request but no confirmed payment. I think in some cases you might want to broadcast your txn to the P2P network, even if the payment messages get lost. What do you think?