📅 Original date posted:2014-01-27
📝 Original message:>> 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).
Ok, so if there is no
payment
_url specified in the PaymentRequest, then the wallet is responsible for
broadcasting
the transaction to the bitcoin network
.
Otherwise, the wallet should
rely on the merchant server to broadcast.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:17 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:
> > +1 for an error field.
>
> Agree, I think we need a way for client applications to interpret the
> response.
>
> > 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).
>
> --
> Pieter
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140127/a97c0293/attachment.html>;
Kevin Greene [ARCHIVE] /
npub1l3…hwq5p
2023-06-07 15:12:36
in reply to nevent1q…dsh3
Author Public Key
npub1l3sj8amnurgf3cu3p2hhcaham90khafc4vgsmymqdnn0k3kanulsghwq5pPublished at
2023-06-07 15:12:36Event JSON
{
"id": "318e2c2540caf6f8748685026c264332971c2fbfc35343b962632ec6f666ffd9",
"pubkey": "fc6123f773e0d098e3910aaf7c76fdd95f6bf538ab110d93606ce6fb46dd9f3f",
"created_at": 1686150756,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cd2b50b4c4e42fbfc1a32e56fc92dceb6f26c7bd94e21234287a2ef4a6ea523e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2adfe109bccc9cecf86b35b592364a28cdc1fcfaed989e08a79e50f2b78882b5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-01-27\n📝 Original message:\u003e\u003e Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when\nit\n\u003e\u003e receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that?\n\u003e\n\u003e In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:\n\u003e acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the\n\u003e transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).\n\nOk, so if there is no\npayment\n_url specified in the PaymentRequest, then the wallet is responsible for\nbroadcasting\nthe transaction to the bitcoin network\n.\nOtherwise, the wallet should\nrely on the merchant server to broadcast.\n\n\nOn Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003ewrote:\n\n\u003e On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Kevin Greene \u003ckgreenek at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e +1 for an error field.\n\u003e\n\u003e Agree, I think we need a way for client applications to interpret the\n\u003e response.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Should the wallet broadcast the transaction to the bitcoin network when\n\u003e it\n\u003e \u003e receives an ACK, or always assume that the merchant server will do that?\n\u003e\n\u003e In my opinion, that should be the primary meaning of receiving an ACK:\n\u003e acknowledgement that the receiver takes responsibility for getting the\n\u003e transaction confirmed (to the extent possible, of course).\n\n\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Pieter\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140127/a97c0293/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "da4e6cb23aeadeb774a4a7499fdbbadd807cc87ec0c286edbf2fad5b1ff85c915f6a44f4db70bb798fa9ff79c715b8be1b47c59c8b9ef3829aba7a9559fd3cae"
}