{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 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."}