📅 Original date posted:2014-01-30
📝 Original message: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
Chuck [ARCHIVE] /
npub1x8…hr552
2023-06-07 15:12:50
in reply to nevent1q…zfy5
Author Public Key
npub1x87yrqqz5ddk5j8yrcsjqgtqdwachqxhzt6lw2ua7sru4jkjwc0qchr552Published at
2023-06-07 15:12:50Event JSON
{
"id": "68a79b7cba4198b8c9cc0ab836f9cce77d3c289487ea8953594ae97c558cefec",
"pubkey": "31fc418002a35b6a48e41e212021606bbb8b80d712f5f72b9df407cacad2761e",
"created_at": 1686150770,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ca814c3187baf530859293da884d43f9b75d876aac144840146db91ec4b86815",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e8eb84ca0800fe966cf45065244e9c753f65e77ba9860f36e7d4efeed4e44830",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-01-30\n📝 Original message:Hi Mike. Thanks for replying.\n\nOn 1/30/2014 5:49 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e Both Bitcoin Core and bitcoinj are about to ship with the protocol \n\u003e as-is, so any changes from this point on have to be backwards compatible.\nThen I think it's critically important to talk about failure situations \nnow, rather than trying to patch on solutions later; it's going to be \nvery hard to wedge/\"hack\" in fixes for potential problems when they \ncould be addressed now with minor changes.\n\u003e Let's get some practical experience with what we've got so far. We can \n\u003e evolve PaymentRequest/Payment/PaymentACK in the right direction with \n\u003e backwards compatible upgrades, I am hoping.\nI think what I'm trying to discuss or find out here is whether the \ncurrent PP description is defunct or incomplete in some manner, thus \nmaking any experience we gain from the current implementation moot.\n\nIt seems the largest hole in the implementation is delivery of the \nPayment message, but I'm happy to accept that maybe I'm just missing \nsomething. A malicious merchant could claim he never received the \nPayment message, or a faulty network connection could cause the message \nto never be delivered. In arbitration the merchant could argue the \ntransactions seen on the network were insufficient.\n\nTo me, this could be a problem.\n\nCheers,\n\nChuck",
"sig": "dd16862414f0f7d81b8bab532df36837c3fbb0c6f35917cfb1038c8da1c6868a4c2dd5b25b6131324c56f133855dd64a6c4a1c08c2ec710320e59baa8102a9de"
}