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
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1VnoA9-0003FR-PV
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:29:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.50 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.50; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f50.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.219.50])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VnoA8-0005dd-QO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:29:09 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id n16so14637611oag.23
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:29:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.78.227 with SMTP id e3mr58674103oex.5.1386070143384; Tue,
03 Dec 2013 03:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.3.134 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:29:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T322nCvynRCL6Mb9C0f5EuJSfMDTSGiU+_JsYoSCb=_kQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP3tGdFh6oG5fbX9JbU6sYbbex1cq=0tQB-0A4aDrdbXrQ@mail.gmail.com>
<l7f97u$jdg$1@ger.gmane.org>
<5E4597E4-C1C7-4536-8CF0-82EDD7715DAB@plan99.net>
<l7fpbn$hf6$1@ger.gmane.org>
<39921E12-B411-4430-9D56-04F53906B109@plan99.net>
<CAGLkj4C9fyAX1CnB0oZH3BwLRQp6WOo9kLUqDhRUSA6y3LxYvg@mail.gmail.com>
<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>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:29:03 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: iffN2b01tlAnvk8dloN_5vm_9Wg
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0P9NTJXs22K8-4hnLkxV7Uo+tjvWKJ8msgxiFgJW6xvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111bca487cc8504ec9f9a9d
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: 1VnoA8-0005dd-QO
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:29:10 -0000
--089e0111bca487cc8504ec9f9a9d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>wrote:
> Making it fee-per-kilobyte is a bad idea, in my opinion; users don't care
> how many kilobytes their transactions are, and they will just be confused
> if they're paying for a 10mBTC burger and are asked to pay 10.00011 or
> 9.9994 because the merchant has no idea how many kilobytes the paying
> transaction will be.
>
Wouldn't the idea be that the user always sees 10mBTC no matter what, but
the receiver may receive less if the user decides to pay with a huge
transaction?
It may be acceptable that receivers don't always receive exactly what they
requested, at least for person-to-business transactions. For
person-to-person transactions of course any fee at all is confusing because
you intuitively expect that if you send 1 mBTC, then 1 mBTC will arrive the
other end. I wonder if we'll end up in a world where buying things from
shops involves paying fees, and (more occasional?) person-to-person
transactions tend to be free and people just understand that the money
isn't going to be spendable for a while. Or alternatively that wallets let
you override the safeguards on spending unconfirmed coins when the user is
sure that they trust the sender.
--089e0111bca487cc8504ec9f9a9d
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 T=
ue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.c=
om</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Making it fee-per-kilo=
byte is a bad idea, in my opinion; users don't care how many kilobytes =
their transactions are, and they will just be confused if they're payin=
g for a 10mBTC burger and are asked to pay 10.00011 or 9.9994 because the m=
erchant has no idea how many kilobytes the paying transaction will be.</div=
>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wouldn't the idea be that the us=
er always sees 10mBTC no matter what, but the receiver may receive less if =
the user decides to pay with a huge transaction?</div><div><br></div><div>
It may be acceptable that receivers don't always receive exactly what t=
hey requested, at least for person-to-business transactions. =C2=A0For pers=
on-to-person transactions of course any fee at all is confusing because you=
intuitively expect that if you send 1 mBTC, then 1 mBTC will arrive the ot=
her end. I wonder if we'll end up in a world where buying things from s=
hops involves paying fees, and (more occasional?) person-to-person transact=
ions tend to be free and people just understand that the money isn't go=
ing to be spendable for a while. Or alternatively that wallets let you over=
ride the safeguards on spending unconfirmed coins when the user is sure tha=
t they trust the sender.</div>
</div></div></div>
--089e0111bca487cc8504ec9f9a9d--
|
