1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <andreas@petersson.at>) id 1VZi3o-0003eZ-0c
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:08:20 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from petersson.at ([213.239.210.117])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VZi3m-0001Vz-Lp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:08:19 +0000
Received: by petersson.at (Postfix, from userid 33)
id 794726701C8; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:08:12 +0200 (CEST)
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:func.inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:08:12 +0200
From: Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>
In-Reply-To: <526A7255.1060101@monetize.io>
References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin> <CANEZrP100Lg_1LcFMKx1yWrGTSFb5GZmLmXNbZjPGaiEgOeuwA@mail.gmail.com> <20131024144358.GA17142@savin> <CANEZrP1TfM+wYbGjUk3+8JJZs6cKZXdb57xGMc=hDr9dQjMMZA@mail.gmail.com> <20131024145447.GA19949@savin> <CABsx9T0T0v=HnRRr6BLKNQOFMBJWrhF4G4SOCJ9DidGJBB8Eow@mail.gmail.com> <20131025070708.GA5760@savin>
<91968c56640bf7647325728f490b9257@localhost>
<526A7255.1060101@monetize.io>
Message-ID: <f7702be213b7d0d616a84daae5a2ce02@localhost>
X-Sender: andreas@petersson.at
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.2.1
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1VZi3m-0001Vz-Lp
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Making fee estimation better
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:08:20 -0000
=0D
> There's no reason the signing can't be done all at once. The wallet=0D
> app would create and sign three transactions, paying avg-std.D, avg,=0D
> and avg+std.D fee. It just waits to broadcast the latter two until it=0D
> has to.=0D
=0D
i see several reasons why this is problematic. =0D
So how would that work in a setting where the user signs a transaction=0D
created offline, transmitted via Bluetooth via a one-way broadcast?=0D
does it transmit all 3 tx to the receiver and just hopes they he will do=0D
the "right thing"?=0D
=0D
=0D
> =0D
> On 10/25/13 5:02 AM, Andreas Petersson wrote:=0D
>> =0D
>> =0D
>>> Worth thinking about the whole ecosystem of wallets involved;=0D
>>> they all have to handle double-spends gracefully to make tx=0D
>>> replacement of any kind user friendly. We should try to give=0D
>>> people a heads up that this is coming soon if that's your=0D
>>> thinking.=0D
>> =0D
>> If there is a situation where wallets are supposed to constantly=0D
>> monitor the tx propagation and recreate their transactions with=0D
>> different fees, this would make a lot of usecases inconvenient. =0D
>> half-offline bluetooth transactions, users with unstable=0D
>> connections, battery power lost, etc, etc. - and last but not least=0D
>> power concerns on hardware wallets on the bitcoincard (tx signing=0D
>> drains a significant amount of power and should therefore only be=0D
>> done once)=0D
>> =0D
>>
|
