📅 Original date posted:2012-11-27
📝 Original message:On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Michael Gronager <gronager at ceptacle.com> wrote:
> * What if the SignedReceipt is not received AND the transactions IS posted on the p2p.
I think this is a problem with confusing terminology rather then the
spec itself.
The original formulation had a receipt being something generated
purely by the buyer. The signed Invoice message + the Bitcoin
transactions paying to the outputs + the merkle branches showing
acceptance by the network *is* the receipt.
The SignedReceipt message is useful in the sense that it shows
confirmation by the merchant, but if you don't get one, you can still
prove you paid the invoice. So from this perspective perhaps
SignedReceipt should be renamed to Acceptance or something like that,
and then the spec should call out that a signed invoice plus accepted
Bitcoin transactions is mathematically a proof of purchase.
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 10:40:51
in reply to nevent1q…ztrs
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 10:40:51Event JSON
{
"id": "db5270427675ec77dd44b72d5f2eefb074ec210b4b0eae9a4460afbce0027888",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686134451,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f5f2400f8aa8a7067be3d080f096fd7cbfeecdd6e589c178b85b63a9338150a5",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0f199c71a70c50e1c9462bc885c2ae0a85e1cbb8dd17154e0a8c9bf5d4ead142",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9e3c76fd7eb862ca37f150391debc7baa4f8423eaa3f894c476a7d4360de9a02"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-11-27\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Michael Gronager \u003cgronager at ceptacle.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e * What if the SignedReceipt is not received AND the transactions IS posted on the p2p.\n\nI think this is a problem with confusing terminology rather then the\nspec itself.\n\nThe original formulation had a receipt being something generated\npurely by the buyer. The signed Invoice message + the Bitcoin\ntransactions paying to the outputs + the merkle branches showing\nacceptance by the network *is* the receipt.\n\nThe SignedReceipt message is useful in the sense that it shows\nconfirmation by the merchant, but if you don't get one, you can still\nprove you paid the invoice. So from this perspective perhaps\nSignedReceipt should be renamed to Acceptance or something like that,\nand then the spec should call out that a signed invoice plus accepted\nBitcoin transactions is mathematically a proof of purchase.",
"sig": "ebc4abdfa8e57ef0cce14eacc650d5286d0d80f845ee3724445a8fefbee7f7aa937ea160bef3c1da00ec71e77be72276584880bf5bc80276d969eddc77d71911"
}