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
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
|
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 1Vnpu6-0000qj-Kv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:20:42 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Vnpu5-0002Lm-LW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:20:42 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id uz6so14220132obc.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 05:20:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.153.226 with SMTP id vj2mr60351449obb.26.1386076836250;
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 05:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.3.134 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:20:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <05CEDEB4-BA29-4ED3-8CFC-D3504727DB4D@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>
<CANEZrP0P9NTJXs22K8-4hnLkxV7Uo+tjvWKJ8msgxiFgJW6xvg@mail.gmail.com>
<05CEDEB4-BA29-4ED3-8CFC-D3504727DB4D@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:20:36 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6a-GitigOtEChW6a6FvtLHpwJ6w
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2PrhtFRPK4dSDFeu9iauqt_WJzCMrr+ynbAPRMBbDcOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Taylor Gerring <taylor.gerring@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0dc074ccd004eca12912
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: 1Vnpu5-0002Lm-LW
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 13:20:42 -0000
--089e013d0dc074ccd004eca12912
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Taylor Gerring <taylor.gerring@gmail.com>w=
rote:
> Why should there be two classes of transactions? Where does paying a loca=
l
> business at a farmer=E2=80=99s stand lie in that realm? Transactions shou=
ld work
> the same regardless of who is on the receiving end.
>
Lots and lots of people are psychologically trained to expect that they pay
the sticker price for things. Yes in recent times some places have started
to show additional fees for using credit cards, but only as a way to try
and push people onto cheaper forms of payment, not because customers love
surcharges. It's for that reason that many merchants don't do this, even
when they could - I pay for things with Maestro Debit all the time and I
don't think I've ever seen a surcharge. That system obviously has costs,
but they're included.
This is just a basic cultural thing - when I buy something from a shop, the
social expectation is that the seller should be grateful for receiving my
money. "The customer is always right". When I send money to a friend, the
social expectation is different. If my friend said, hey Mike, could you
send me that 10 bucks you owe me from last weekend and what he receives is
less than 10 bucks, he would probably feel annoyed - if I owe him 10 bucks
then I owe him 10 bucks and it's my job the cover the fees. That's why
PayPal makes sender pay fees in that case.
Maybe we need new terminology for this. *Interior fees* for included in the
price/receiver pays and *exterior fees* for excluded from the price/sender
pays?
Fees are only confusing because existing clients do a terrible job of
> presenting the information to the user. In Hive Wallet, I=E2=80=99m of th=
e opinion
> that we should inform the user in an intuitive way to let them make an
> informed decision.
>
Have you thought through the UI for that in detail? How exactly are you
going to explain the fee structure? Let the user pick the number of blocks
they need to wait for? What's a block? Why should I care? Why shouldn't I
just set the slider all the way to the other end and pay no fees at all? Is
the merchant going to refuse to take my payment? Gavin just said that's not
possible with Bitcoin-Qt. I'm thinking for bitcoinj I might go in a
slightly different direction and not broadcast payments submitted via the
payment protocol (and definitely not have one wire tx pay multiple payment
requests simultaneously, at least not for consumer wallets).
--089e013d0dc074ccd004eca12912
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 12:57 PM, Taylor Gerring <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:taylor.gerring@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">taylor.gerring@gmail=
.com</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 style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div cla=
ss=3D"im"><div><span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">Why should there be two =
classes of transactions? Where does paying a local business at a farmer=E2=
=80=99s stand lie in that realm? Transactions should work the same regardle=
ss of who is on the receiving end.</span></div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Lots and lots of people are ps=
ychologically trained to expect that they pay the sticker price for things.=
Yes in recent times some places have started to show additional fees for u=
sing credit cards, but only as a way to try and push people onto cheaper fo=
rms of payment, not because customers love surcharges. It's for that re=
ason that many merchants don't do this, even when they could - I pay fo=
r things with Maestro Debit all the time and I don't think I've eve=
r seen a surcharge. That system obviously has costs, but they're includ=
ed.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This is just a basic cultural thing - when I buy someth=
ing from a shop, the social expectation is that the seller should be gratef=
ul for receiving my money. "The customer is always right". When I=
send money to a friend, the social expectation is different. If my friend =
said, hey Mike, could you send me that 10 bucks you owe me from last weeken=
d and what he receives is less than 10 bucks, he would probably feel annoye=
d - if I owe him 10 bucks then I owe him 10 bucks and it's my job the c=
over the fees. That's why PayPal makes sender pay fees in that case.</d=
iv>
<div><br></div><div>Maybe we need new terminology for this. <i>Interior fee=
s</i> for included in the price/receiver pays and <i>exterior fees</i> for =
excluded from the price/sender pays?</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">
<div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div class=3D"im"><div><span style=3D"c=
olor:rgb(34,34,34)">Fees are only confusing because existing clients do a t=
errible job of presenting the information to the user. In Hive Wallet, I=E2=
=80=99m of the opinion that we should inform the user in an intuitive way t=
o let them make an informed decision.</span></div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Have you thought through the U=
I for that in detail? How exactly are you going to explain the fee structur=
e? Let the user pick the number of blocks they need to wait for? What's=
a block? Why should I care? Why shouldn't I just set the slider all th=
e way to the other end and pay no fees at all? Is the merchant going to ref=
use to take my payment? Gavin just said that's not possible with Bitcoi=
n-Qt. I'm thinking for bitcoinj I might go in a slightly different dire=
ction and not broadcast payments submitted via the payment protocol (and de=
finitely not have one wire tx pay multiple payment requests simultaneously,=
at least not for consumer wallets).</div>
</div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div>
--089e013d0dc074ccd004eca12912--
|
