Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Z36eX-0007t9-IG
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:52:33 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.43; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	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 1Z36eW-0002bH-Ib
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:52:33 +0000
Received: by wgme6 with SMTP id e6so9389441wgm.2
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.157.168 with SMTP id wn8mr18205623wjb.79.1434045146572; 
	Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.16.40 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5579C0FE.8080701@thinlink.com>
References: <CAFdHNGgtgWGu8gnnJfM0EcVn2m_Wff5HPwAe-9FBvjR++q0Q-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3+jW3BO=Zv41CGubJL7bSZ==o=Wp83K6Q0xL4PP+0ZUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACq0ZD6Qr7F7_20Nfd0a8TTHEVMR0fxu-T5bO4FfN1Lp9PcGDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150611131048.GA24053@savin.petertodd.org>
	<5579C0FE.8080701@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:52:26 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: PIpP325soyR2ToU4BLYexWeY2M4
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2MiU8=sUXqAAjoJtkcdu4oAKmqVxM3ERz_fuknzWGiiw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122e9688dac21051841a701
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
	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: 1Z36eW-0002bH-Ib
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: SPV Fee Discovery mechanism
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:52:33 -0000

--089e0122e9688dac21051841a701
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> > Re: "dropped in an unpredictable way" - transactions would be dropped
> > lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way.
>
> Quite agreed.


No, Aaron is correct. It's unpredictable from the perspective of the user
sending the transaction, and as they are the ones picking the fees, that is
what matters.

--089e0122e9688dac21051841a701
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"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">&gt; Re: &quot;dropped in an un=
predictable way&quot; - transactions would be dropped<br>
&gt; lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way.<br>
<br>
</span>Quite agreed.=C2=A0 </blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, Aaron is co=
rrect. It&#39;s unpredictable from the perspective of the user sending the =
transaction, and as they are the ones picking the fees, that is what matter=
s.</div></div></div></div>

--089e0122e9688dac21051841a701--