Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics

2014-01-28 Thread Mike Hearn
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. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Kevin Greene

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics

2014-01-28 Thread Gavin Andresen
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics

2014-01-28 Thread Pieter Wuille
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics

2014-01-28 Thread Mike Hearn
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? I guess a lot of wallets just won't broadcast at all and try to submit via the URL. If

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics

2014-01-28 Thread Peter Todd
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics

2014-01-28 Thread Mike Hearn
In practice this should only be an issue if a payment is submitted and fails, which should be rare. Barring internal server errors and screwups on the merchants side, the only reasons for a rejection at submit time would be the imperfect fungibility of bitcoins, e.g. you try and pay with a huge

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics

2014-01-28 Thread Peter Todd
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:33:28PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: In practice this should only be an issue if a payment is submitted and fails, which should be rare. Barring internal server errors and screwups on the merchants side, the only reasons for a rejection at submit time would be the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Extension for BIP-0070 to support recurring payments

2014-01-28 Thread Stephane Brossier
From what I have seen so far, there seems to be an agreement that this is a nice feature to add. We are pretty new to that community and so we don't know exactly what the process is, and in particular how we reach consensus via email. I am certainly open to follow 'the way' if there is one, but

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 32, Issue 57

2014-01-28 Thread Ryan Carboni
This will easily create too much data in the block chain. I think it's probably better to trust online wallets to handle complex financial transactions such a debits or credits. If Bitcoin achieves Visa-levels of popularity, that would mean one megabyte of transactions per second (even assuming