Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.80 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.80; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149080.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:51:58 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20131204215158.GA5924@tilt>
References: <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>
	<CANEZrP2D_9AZXT2b5cgyiO3T9Udhk33tbNxBYSa16W7xL7_woA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2D_9AZXT2b5cgyiO3T9Udhk33tbNxBYSa16W7xL7_woA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Floating fees and SPV clients
Precedence: list


--k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:48:08PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
> > 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
>=20
>=20
> The original proposal I started this thread with hasn't even received
> comments - presumably it's uncontroversial. The other discussions are abo=
ut
> how to handle fees in requests that use the payment protocol, which isn't
> currently used anywhere so doing things differently isn't possible.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.

Other than you, replacement for fee changing isn't controversial; I know
this because no-one other than you comments on it... just like the
fundemental changes involving your proposed hardfork presumably. (which
I did comment on)


Besides, "Happily, there does not have to be One Correct Answer here.
Let wallets compete, and may the best user experience win..."

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000f9102d27cfd61ea9e8bb324593593ca3ce6ba53153ff251b3

--k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSn6P9AAoJECSBQD2l8JH7/zsH/3gWXSGg4wpK3DxjtTeNSLwG
Qh6JIFIVfu8ida/k8XLJXIHeCw/iuW4aUSXUk3UpVqoDXsAADwg5xlUFWcODZFsy
ePOoTPsrMcDt3Df2gK1IbbJEkvNJgGIWnY4tR5Ypp/NG5J9hJod8fDAcd1dBFvzY
EKTtZ1ZA1+jih36xogVtQdgw1o+J6t6u05Vjm+qLilDlL988I0dTSKXgV4AnLDdY
QMKIvWmhleDvRS9pacDEyFFayj8Yat6cxfE9hF6e8v9GCYGGSxuHNnWYvtd+NMo4
/eBpyW8HFij0nMPVn1CrxXxmF5rrBbbkGfk5gkFTUTNdzN4FxRKwf1dPR//rPNo=
=k0EG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0--