Hi Mike. Thanks for replying. On 1/30/2014 5:49 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Both Bitcoin Core and bitcoinj are about to ship with the protocol > as-is, so any changes from this point on have to be backwards compatible. Then I think it's critically important to talk about failure situations now, rather than trying to patch on solutions later; it's going to be very hard to wedge/"hack" in fixes for potential problems when they could be addressed now with minor changes. > Let's get some practical experience with what we've got so far. We can > evolve PaymentRequest/Payment/PaymentACK in the right direction with > backwards compatible upgrades, I am hoping. I think what I'm trying to discuss or find out here is whether the current PP description is defunct or incomplete in some manner, thus making any experience we gain from the current implementation moot.
It seems the largest hole in the implementation is delivery of the Payment message, but I'm happy to accept that maybe I'm just missing something. A malicious merchant could claim he never received the Payment message, or a faulty network connection could cause the message to never be delivered. In arbitration the merchant could argue the transactions seen on the network were insufficient. To me, this could be a problem. Cheers, Chuck ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
