On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:53:14AM -0500, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Mike Hearn <m...@plan99.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > If the wallet software is doing automatic CoinJoin (for example), then > typically one or several of the other participants will broadcast the > transaction as soon as it is complete. > > If the spec said that wallets must not broadcast until they receive a > PaymentACK (if a payment_url is specified), then you'd have to violate the > spec to do CoinJoin. > > And even if you don't care about CoinJoin, not broadcasting the transaction > as soon as the inputs are signed adds implementation complexity (should you > retry if payment_url is unavailable? how many times? if you eventually > unlock the probably-not-quite-spent-yet inputs, should you double-spend > them to yourself just in case the merchant eventually gets around to > broadcasting the transaction, or should you just unlock them and squirrel > away the failed Payment so if the merchant does eventually broadcast you > have a record of why the coins were spent).
Also users don't have infinite unspent txouts in their wallets - if they need to make two payments in a row and run out their wallet software is (currently) going to spend the change txout and either be forced to broadcast both transactions anyway, or the second payment-protocol-using recipient will do so on their behalf. (in the future they might also do a replacement tx replacing the first with a single tx paying both to save on fees, again with the same problem) Anyway what you want is payment atomicity: the customer losing control of the funds must be atomic with respect to the payment going through. From that point of view it's unfortunate that Payment message contains refund_to, memo, etc. That information should have been provided to the merchant prior to them providing the list of addresses to pay. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000085c725a905444d271c56fdee4e4ec7f27bdb2e777c872925
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key security issues and trends. Skip the complicated setup - simply import a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
