summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorMike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>2013-12-04 14:48:08 +0100
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2013-12-04 13:48:16 +0000
commitced9af7b5c5262ed16a8ea71e0a4351e3107243b (patch)
treed04063a91b7f4c460b9a7180b45943e3944ce598
parent428371adbfdbfa1a6381d5c8aa5758b75408cb79 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-ced9af7b5c5262ed16a8ea71e0a4351e3107243b.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-ced9af7b5c5262ed16a8ea71e0a4351e3107243b.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Floating fees and SPV clients
-rw-r--r--fe/495c03e180ed8f690823fee6374ae63ec5a10a128
1 files changed, 128 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/fe/495c03e180ed8f690823fee6374ae63ec5a10a b/fe/495c03e180ed8f690823fee6374ae63ec5a10a
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f0f432e01
--- /dev/null
+++ b/fe/495c03e180ed8f690823fee6374ae63ec5a10a
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1VoCoK-0001Ze-QX
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:48:16 +0000
+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
+ designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
+ client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
+ helo=mail-bk0-f47.google.com;
+Received: from mail-bk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47])
+ by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
+ (Exim 4.76) id 1VoCoJ-0003am-TD
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:48:16 +0000
+Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id mx12so6502522bkb.6
+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
+ Wed, 04 Dec 2013 05:48:09 -0800 (PST)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+X-Received: by 10.204.243.2 with SMTP id lk2mr44244bkb.94.1386164889230; Wed,
+ 04 Dec 2013 05:48:09 -0800 (PST)
+Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
+Received: by 10.204.237.74 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 05:48:08 -0800 (PST)
+In-Reply-To: <20131204130643.GA5313@tilt>
+References: <CANEZrP1C=Hc-3f-rqQ+wYrPn-eUj52HjN+qRQdJMWvnP+dkK=Q@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAJHLa0P_uzEQ2OG2FTXyD2Zw4RzujNBxKbKD04CSS1sLNpLUUQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CANEZrP2hf2853w9f4__Ji9v3eRRU0u6pEzPxAmFN+iH067gtnA@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CABsx9T3NQDPL6=pz5BD5DsP0qh0x3LJOCj2H3yY5tzL2_DivGA@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CANEZrP1PLKemiUEgMJRGdiZXt7o=0_5fhLKYY0x3Ngb_iEm+2w@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CABsx9T322nCvynRCL6Mb9C0f5EuJSfMDTSGiU+_JsYoSCb=_kQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <op.w7jnreqwyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
+ <CANEZrP3D4WhXTdMAT7B=DaXEOSdXESc+bU0n7enu7hSaGtns8A@mail.gmail.com>
+ <e4515a76-b4c1-4a5f-a884-6d692b8d3466@email.android.com>
+ <CANEZrP287DH6JSMjAdu53_omrA96f5aQMZKObT1=VV5vqk=JBA@mail.gmail.com>
+ <20131204130643.GA5313@tilt>
+Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:48:08 +0100
+X-Google-Sender-Auth: EIEdwXCh9CvwlArPMQhWLyN8Ayk
+Message-ID: <CANEZrP2D_9AZXT2b5cgyiO3T9Udhk33tbNxBYSa16W7xL7_woA@mail.gmail.com>
+From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
+To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929
+X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
+ -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
+ sender-domain
+ 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
+ (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
+ -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
+ 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
+ See
+ http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
+ for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org]
+ 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
+ 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
+ not necessarily valid
+ -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
+X-Headers-End: 1VoCoJ-0003am-TD
+Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Floating fees and SPV clients
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
+X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:48:17 -0000
+
+--f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+
+On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
+
+> replace-by-fee is no less speculative than your original proposals;
+> you're also trying to convince people that things should work
+> differently re: fees
+
+
+The original proposal I started this thread with hasn't even received
+comments - presumably it's uncontroversial. The other discussions are about
+how to handle fees in requests that use the payment protocol, which isn't
+currently used anywhere so doing things differently isn't possible.
+
+On the other hand you have been talking about a fundamental change to the
+behaviour of how all Bitcoin nodes operate, which is off topic for this
+thread.
+
+If you have something specific to say about how floating fees should be
+managed by SPV wallets or how fees should be negotiated when the payment
+protocol is in use, this thread is appropriate. Otherwise please take it
+elsewhere.
+
+--f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929
+Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W=
+ed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
+lto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt;</span>=
+ wrote:<br>
+</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
+"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,2=
+04,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D""><div clas=
+s=3D"h5">
+<span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">replace-by-fee is no less speculative t=
+han your original proposals;</span><br></div></div>
+you&#39;re also trying to convince people that things should work<br>
+differently re: fees</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The original proposal =
+I started this thread with hasn&#39;t even received comments - presumably i=
+t&#39;s uncontroversial. The other discussions are about how to handle fees=
+ in requests that use the payment protocol, which isn&#39;t currently used =
+anywhere so doing things differently isn&#39;t possible.</div>
+<div><br></div><div>On the other hand you have been talking about a fundame=
+ntal change to the behaviour of how all Bitcoin nodes operate, which is off=
+ topic for this thread.</div><div><br></div><div>If you have something spec=
+ific to say about how floating fees should be managed by SPV wallets or how=
+ fees should be negotiated when the payment protocol is in use, this thread=
+ is appropriate. Otherwise please take it elsewhere.=C2=A0</div>
+</div></div></div>
+
+--f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929--
+
+