📅 Original date posted:2014-01-30
📝 Original message:On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when it
>> > receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that?
>
>> In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:
>> acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the
>> transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).
>
> Is this truly the intent? That the merchant/processor takes full
> responsibility for getting the TX confirmed?
Confirmed is probably the wrong word. But IMHO (not how it's currently
worded), the merchant should take that responsibility after delivering
a PaymentACK. This means the client does not need to stay online
anymore. More importantly, it removes the requirement for the P2P
network to function as a reliable sender->receiver communication
channel (and reduces it to a broadcast medium to get transactions to
miners).
--
Pieter
Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tj…jtl6r
2023-06-07 15:12:38
in reply to nevent1q…duwt
Author Public Key
npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rPublished at
2023-06-07 15:12:38Event JSON
{
"id": "5eb5849d0b393f22455baa1eb5935543d2dd0e7aaf30019116fe5f2003f03818",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686150758,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cd2b50b4c4e42fbfc1a32e56fc92dceb6f26c7bd94e21234287a2ef4a6ea523e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d82510fa78152916a6242bb226418d5cd10c3374a1493a5ceaf86a313282883a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-01-30\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene \u003ckgreenek at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when it\n\u003e\u003e \u003e receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that?\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:\n\u003e\u003e acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the\n\u003e\u003e transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).\n\u003e\n\u003e Is this truly the intent? That the merchant/processor takes full\n\u003e responsibility for getting the TX confirmed?\n\nConfirmed is probably the wrong word. But IMHO (not how it's currently\nworded), the merchant should take that responsibility after delivering\na PaymentACK. This means the client does not need to stay online\nanymore. More importantly, it removes the requirement for the P2P\nnetwork to function as a reliable sender-\u003ereceiver communication\nchannel (and reduces it to a broadcast medium to get transactions to\nminers).\n\n-- \nPieter",
"sig": "867b1c1632e0a27827aeb494b51a8597047e32ba2e345aac2f3550f2824272eeaa5ef725155e5bd9093ea98a9ee51fbbd7a75783523c966c876d0d990da9475b"
}