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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@exmulti.com>) id 1SJ9Sr-000659-Md
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:20:57 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-vb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SJ9Sq-0002xP-NC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:20:57 +0000
Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so4198996vbb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=CGx8jdQUL1FtRoY+FzOJUL6o7EMIQnQ+jtLouKeLOzM=;
b=WbqtQ+xAa5cMbKsNk4+WzPx7TuWXvueKXnSioKHIzY/KnTQ9SNhemIE1bjttFayprT
bK9p/aXpr7KA7dskDquxjk8mpq3zzweAhBYxRnv0N3v8xWjFj3ZFA+xOqvd7nONmZadR
kFVwJQ/SyOqLHkaVcGksRagfmpBtxqhoa4OQuuM5/oEjDH+6Zo3ne0mcXK7e9zwiCCjY
ot0V/ELrUm84PNo6TxancXaNKHBOlmUKvBpZnOwt1NUnaEGPMFDhb6s/27/kk/HdgC3/
ieVD/2eKWN/UtSb8aJRiy2QhFQ/ScAvdrwruc6h/sC36qt6fjAfF4EozkjE5mXwvOhdt
jPBQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.69.100 with SMTP id d4mr2717258vdu.9.1334434850881; Sat, 14
Apr 2012 13:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.109.33 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [99.43.178.25]
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP33d9zHaf9A9+2BG-YHZEf_pA2SSTNL-_Ht4tT22qV6Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+8xBpc5CZ9Sx4MwPdeS0-5frnV9B+mJ5OwcPoUVrygTawiJBg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP28Wf6RVOgd85COkE-vLdtCbyQYa0b9QvPFt9W1DzNJag@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+8xBpcNd-s9S-zDGO6gGwnd1sFSUikH1fAnCUoG1WiL5kkmVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP33d9zHaf9A9+2BG-YHZEf_pA2SSTNL-_Ht4tT22qV6Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:20:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpfKpzeq7qSUV5w6JNtTE1-zu58Zg_KCbFAx0JTGeeUG1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnP/GxrV7T60K+lvsyV8rmsnmb3KZw3O5yCrpYGCep6u1RMy9iZ8FXw4x03bIW74cPBa2b1
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1SJ9Sq-0002xP-NC
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 20:20:57 -0000
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>> So, to be specific... a A->B chain of transactions, that collectively
>> meet the network's fee requirements?
>
> Yes.
ACK on the concept
>> 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.
Agreed. A TX is just a signed message. No reason why it -must- use
mainnet's distributed notary service.
>> 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.
IIRC pay-to-IP was removed because it was unreliable -and- detrimental
to privacy? ISTR Satoshi specifically disliking the privacy elements
of p2ip.
But I also have a "gut feeling" that these sorts of payments and
direct communication should be done via a wholly separate protocol
than the bitcoin P2P protocol. Doing p2ip as it was done originally,
inside the bitcoin P2P protocol, was a mistake. Extensible as it is,
I think a better job -- and faster evolution -- can be done with a
separate protocol on a separate port.
Some HTTP derivative would probably make life easier for mobile
payments and firewalled scenarios, and for client->merchant
communications, for instance.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com
|
