Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VsVBP-0004Q8-92 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:13:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of zikula.org designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.43; envelope-from=drak@zikula.org; helo=mail-wg0-f43.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VsVBO-0004A1-7q for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:13:51 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id k14so4389387wgh.10 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:13:43 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=c4QWpG20vAw8HB5XlIngNwVJVhkGE2zJm6nNcKdpY10=; b=j0TZ6jtcXxOOwgDR749UO8Pz+EX422qjtFvPE9kgjqCG8omzacMVAjjVJjoG3+dvMr U+fGrwWiZFpyHKbbXjcV5zOSSQnrTchyYK/FJWdTWU9SfllZKOjJFO3KoaAATj4vFq1+ FdoDgo48kt+WV8EBbQ4BwyllOmEovWxagjSL3ue6MhEQ2+PWqTnaL5651mxtilTnngY1 nO9b4pAnC8WyNkAp4e/d1Y6MnfN10tV8FUWt3oJXR9EFLQ9cCQJGvX7Gq2di3jA81h/G nmVrH2O6UlLMps+LtSgPPMBeLD7RVZeX8B/loxYDxkxpKCVlb6zikFA++D9fVBlvu3PF C4HA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn+Y/ui5Wnt9/COKHVwfWFnp9Aq8Us4TgaygGQqYInZsB/K1/RdTRsMDOxPlPmM6RAU7DyQ X-Received: by 10.180.108.162 with SMTP id hl2mr12470905wib.56.1387188823781; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:13:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.93.105 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:13:22 -0800 (PST) From: Drak Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:13:22 +0000 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3bac6f1410ca04eda4111b 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 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: reddit.com] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1VsVBO-0004A1-7q Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Fees UI warning X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:13:51 -0000 --e89a8f3bac6f1410ca04eda4111b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Not sure if this is the right place, but since a few wallet authors congregate here I though it might be the best place. It seems every once in a while you see stories of people accidentally paying huge fees. Today I read about a man who paid a 20.14BTC fee for a 0.05 BTC transaction[1], oops. There was another recently where someone paid a fee of about 200BTC which fortunately the pool operator refunded. It just occurs to me this kind of sad story could be averted if wallets implemented a confirmation box if the fee amount seems crazy - for example, if it's >10x what the default fee should be, or if it's greater than x% of the sending amount. "the fee seems unusually high, are you really sure you want to pay X in fees?" I realise the exact details of this might need to be fleshed out given we want flexible fees, but it should be pretty simple to agree with what looks like an unusually large fee according to the going rate. Drak [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1syu3h/i_lost_all_my_bitcoins_in_an_erroneous/ --e89a8f3bac6f1410ca04eda4111b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Not sure if this is the right place, but since a few walle= t authors congregate here I though it might be the best place.

It seems every once in a while you see stories of people accidentall= y paying huge fees. Today I read about a man who paid a 20.14BTC fee for a = 0.05 BTC transaction[1], oops. There was another recently where someone pai= d a fee of about 200BTC which fortunately the pool operator refunded.

It just occurs to me this kind of sad story could be av= erted if wallets implemented a confirmation box if the fee amount seems cra= zy - for example, if it's >10x what the default fee should be, or if= it's greater than x% of the sending amount. "the fee seems unusua= lly high, are you really sure you want to pay X in fees?"

I realise the exact details of this might need to be fl= eshed out given we want flexible fees, but it should be pretty simple to ag= ree with what looks like an unusually large fee according to the going rate= .

Drak

--e89a8f3bac6f1410ca04eda4111b--