Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.115 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.115; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149115.authsmtp.co.uk; 
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:03:54 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20131203110354.GA6513@tilt>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FCuugMFkClbJLl1L"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3NQDPL6=pz5BD5DsP0qh0x3LJOCj2H3yY5tzL2_DivGA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Floating fees and SPV clients
Precedence: list


--FCuugMFkClbJLl1L
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:40:35AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>=20
> > PPv1 doesn't have any notion of fee unfortunately. I suppose it could be
> > added easily, but we also need to launch the existing feature set.
> >
>=20
> Lets bang out a merchant-pays-fee extension.
>=20
> How about:
>=20
> SPEC:
>=20
>     optional uint64 allowfee    tag number=3D1000
>=20
> Allow up to allowfee satoshis to be deducted from the amount paid to be
> used to pay Bitcoin network transaction fees. A wallet implementation must
> not reduce the amount paid for fees more than allowfee, and transaction
> fees must be equal to or greater than the amount reduced.

Fees are per byte of tx data; call it allowfeeperkb, and given that fees
are required - the merchant would really rather not waste up to about
twice as much on fees for a child-pays-for-parent - it should be called
requirefeeperkb.

Back to your point, the merchant wants to limit total fees that have
been deducted - 'allowfee' is still a good idea - but only in
conjunction with specifying fee-per-kb requirements.

UI once both are implemented is to not show anything in the default
case, and explain to the user why they have to pay extra in the unusual
case where they are spending a whole bunch of dust.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000f9102d27cfd61ea9e8bb324593593ca3ce6ba53153ff251b3

--FCuugMFkClbJLl1L
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSnbqZAAoJECSBQD2l8JH734UH/3qAGI55zFVwl6H/v696exEG
7iy7muLkSg75JyMIRuNK80O1783VFuRNQjj84hLh7rUf42ju+douTsrJzasEgZXk
zaicX4N16N16XjFjJZyXx6LyHFEitsTSgLA5pSxDN2dvVMXYl8KITmcHz2fyLOfN
Z4ps3FRHSAOdw2uP1mn4V7gvNqRTKTkAuVnIMY35U6mRfLHaD5FPGx/skbCzsYWQ
eyuvKf2lyCbtH10WvFI1swAxEp40nnYnixIf+GwozI4s+lvp6umS3/aqVju5UuFM
1xue6EBZ1YHAfM9HBXyy9qOM0eyT3j7wXCPc0PlSENLmYi8WVmG/aGyFu4SFeXk=
=mlRG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--FCuugMFkClbJLl1L--