Chuck [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2014-01-30 š Original message:On 1/30/2014 6:31 PM, Mike ...
š
Original date posted:2014-01-30
š Original message:On 1/30/2014 6:31 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> The arbitrator would presumably have some rules about what is or isn't
> an acceptable form of payment.
Do you think this puts unnecessary trust into a third party? If the
merchant instead signed and agreed to the unsigned transactions before
they were broadcast (as in my OP), these arbitration concerns disappear.
> HTTP has response codes for submission of the Payment message. We
> could add signing to PaymentACK and other things in future, if that
> turns out to be insufficient in practice.
HTTP isn't the only message delivery mechanism. Merchants can also lie:
reply with 200 OK and an empty body. Or, reply with 404 not found and
broadcast transactions anyway.
Cheers,
Chuck
š Original message:On 1/30/2014 6:31 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> The arbitrator would presumably have some rules about what is or isn't
> an acceptable form of payment.
Do you think this puts unnecessary trust into a third party? If the
merchant instead signed and agreed to the unsigned transactions before
they were broadcast (as in my OP), these arbitration concerns disappear.
> HTTP has response codes for submission of the Payment message. We
> could add signing to PaymentACK and other things in future, if that
> turns out to be insufficient in practice.
HTTP isn't the only message delivery mechanism. Merchants can also lie:
reply with 200 OK and an empty body. Or, reply with 404 not found and
broadcast transactions anyway.
Cheers,
Chuck