Closed luke-jr closed 9 years ago
I think the recommendation against refunds was meant to convey the idea that just because an address was used to send money, this does not mean the sender still has the private key. Issuing a refund to a sending address is not recommended. Getting a new address for refunds is recommended.
This document was made before most people knew about the plans for the payment protocol. It needs to be updated.
An address is never used to send money...
Even without the payment protocol, it's pretty simple to ask for a refund address. Refusing to provide a refund is IMO just rude and unprofessional, not something we should be recommending in any case.
Updating it sounds like a good idea. :)
Lol. Regular people use "addresses" to send money from, like it or not...the insane reuse of addresses problem will be with us for a while yet.
The intent was not to suggest refusing to send refunds was a good idea. It was to prevent folks from refunding to the address of origin, as many naively would do.
I've actually always thought that following a bitcoin transaction, when a refund was desired, the best method was to send a check in the mail. As I recall, this did get written up in one of the ED documents as an option. I don't think it was a matter that was clearly explained as to the "why", though.
The issue of refunds has to be thought out in several cases (1) person with his own addresses owned, known only to him (2) payment processor (3) intermediary exchange.
However, if the transaction was between currencies, this is not good. Most people can't cash a check in foreign currency in less than several months.
Refunds is most definitely a subject deserving of a "best practices" suggestion set, that much is for sure.
@luke-jr Would you consider doing a pull request to this resource so as to indicate the needed change?
I just did a commit for this section which hopefully is responsive to the comments posted in this issue. If you feel it needs further changes, please feel free.
Proposing closure for this issue given that the commit has been made. If someone wants to open a pull reques, please by all means. Please reference this issue in the pull request. If not, then I'll assume after a little while - week or two? ~ this has been open since Aug. 14 ~ that it should be proposed to be be closed.
Why would anyone consider denying refunds to be a "best practice"? This seems unreasonable and unrealistic. The payment protocol has refund support builtin, so there is really not much excuse for refusing to make a refund. Whether it is manual or not depends on the payment processors, who should be expected to implement this functionality.