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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
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 1SJ4fi-0003Un-HZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:13:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SJ4fh-0002gT-PJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:13:54 +0000
Received: by wgbfm10 with SMTP id fm10so3589293wgb.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.95.34 with SMTP id dh2mr4744904wib.15.1334416427651; Sat,
14 Apr 2012 08:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.230.218 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpcNd-s9S-zDGO6gGwnd1sFSUikH1fAnCUoG1WiL5kkmVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+8xBpc5CZ9Sx4MwPdeS0-5frnV9B+mJ5OwcPoUVrygTawiJBg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP28Wf6RVOgd85COkE-vLdtCbyQYa0b9QvPFt9W1DzNJag@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+8xBpcNd-s9S-zDGO6gGwnd1sFSUikH1fAnCUoG1WiL5kkmVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:13:47 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: W8-M6xDdOwQ3wUOe5VsmmC-04Z0
Message-ID: <CANEZrP33d9zHaf9A9+2BG-YHZEf_pA2SSTNL-_Ht4tT22qV6Xw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
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: 1SJ4fh-0002gT-PJ
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin TX fill-or-kill deterministic
behavior
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: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:13:54 -0000
> So, to be specific... a A->B chain of transactions, that collectively
> meet the network's fee requirements?
Yes.
> Ideally the fee, if any, is market based and negotiated. Problem is... like
> democracy, no matter how ugly it is, people have trouble finding a
> better system :)
I think this is something we can explore over the coming years. I
favor having people commonly pass transactions around outside the
broadcast network with the transactions and their dependencies being
broadcast only when there's a lack of trust between recipient and
sender. The block chain is an optional service after all.
> Furthermore, many of these ideas -- like sending TX's directly to the
> merchant -- involve far more direct payee<->payer communication on the
> part of the wallet client than is currently envisioned
Yes, though it's worth remembering that the original Bitcoin design
did have participants communicate directly. When I talked with Satoshi
in 2009 he saw the pay-to-IP-address mode imagined as the normal way
to make payments, with pay-to-address being used as a kind of backup
for when the recipient was offline.
In the end that's not how things evolved, but it the pendulum could
easily swing back the other way.
|
