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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WUJQf-0007vi-99 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:21:53 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.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-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WUJQd-0006ET-Pn for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:21:53 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WUJQP-0000Go-Ln for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 19:21:37 +0200 Received: from e179065109.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.179.65.109]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 19:21:37 +0200 Received: from andreas by e179065109.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 19:21:37 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 19:21:26 +0200 Message-ID: References: <5335BD17.6050408@plan99.net> <20140329092721.GG62995@giles.gnomon.org.uk> 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: e179065109.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -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] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -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 -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1WUJQd-0006ET-Pn Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 70 refund field 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: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:21:53 -0000 I'd prefer 3 months to 2 just because a quarter of year is a more common timespan. But of course its just paint shedding, so 2 sounds good for me too (-: On 03/29/2014 02:29 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > So how about we say two months? That way it's easy for merchants to > comply with the EU DSD and we keep RAM usage in check until we come up > with a more sophisticated refund scheme. > > There's another issue with BIP 70 and refunds that I noticed. The > PaymentRequest doesn't specify whether refunds are possible. So wallets > have to either never submit refund data, or always submit it even if it > makes no sense. Because setting things up to get refunds has a non-zero > cost for the sender, it'd help if we could optimise it away for > merchants that simply refuse to issue refunds for whatever reason. > > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Roy Badami > wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:56:57PM +0100, Andreas Schildbach wrote: > > On 03/28/2014 07:19 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > > > > >> Ok, why don't fix this in the spec for now, by defining a fixed > expiry > > >> time. In the EU, most products are covered by a 2 years > warranty, so it > > >> seems appropriate to pick 2.5 years (30 months) -- allowing for > some > > >> time to ship the product back and forth. > > > > > > Yeah I was thinking something like that on the walk home. But 2 > years is > > > a long time. Do we have enough RAM for that? > > > > It depends on usage stats, script size, etc... > > > > > Plus warranties usually > > > result in the defective goods being replaced rather than a monetary > > > refund, right? > > > > Usually yes. The next smaller "unit of time" in Germany would be two > > weeks, the so-called "Fernabsatzgesetz". It allows you to send back > > mail-orders and usually you want the money back. Don't know if > that made > > it into EU law or how it applies to other countries. > > It's EU law, but the Distance Selling Directive only says "at least > seven days", so the exact period probably varies by country (in the UK > it is 7 days). > > But the clock only starts ticking when you receive the goods, and the > Distance Selling Directive allows the supplier 30 days "to execute the > order" (I *think* the 30 days always has to include shipping, because > for consumer contracts title doesn't pass until the goods are > delivered, so the order wouldn't be considered complete until then). > > So I think latest possible deadline for returning the goods for refund > could be up to 30 days to execute the order plus "at least 7 days" > (with some countries allowing more). Plus, conceivably, shipping > time, if some member states have chosen to interpret the 30 day > execution differently. > > So I think this adds up to "a couple of months, give or take". In > practice, though, even a couple of months is a bit on the short time. > What if the goods are delayed. How many people have had miner orders > outstanding for the best part of a year? > > roy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >