To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:08:12 +0200
From: Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>
In-Reply-To: <526A7255.1060101@monetize.io>
References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin>	<CANEZrP100Lg_1LcFMKx1yWrGTSFb5GZmLmXNbZjPGaiEgOeuwA@mail.gmail.com>	<20131024144358.GA17142@savin>	<CANEZrP1TfM+wYbGjUk3+8JJZs6cKZXdb57xGMc=hDr9dQjMMZA@mail.gmail.com>	<20131024145447.GA19949@savin>	<CABsx9T0T0v=HnRRr6BLKNQOFMBJWrhF4G4SOCJ9DidGJBB8Eow@mail.gmail.com>	<20131025070708.GA5760@savin>
	<91968c56640bf7647325728f490b9257@localhost>
	<526A7255.1060101@monetize.io>
Message-ID: <f7702be213b7d0d616a84daae5a2ce02@localhost>
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.2.1
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Making fee estimation better
Precedence: list


=0D
> There's no reason the signing can't be done all at once. The wallet=0D
> app would create and sign three transactions, paying avg-std.D, avg,=0D
> and avg+std.D fee. It just waits to broadcast the latter two until it=0D
> has to.=0D
=0D
i see several reasons why this is problematic. =0D
So how would that work in a setting where the user signs a transaction=0D
created offline, transmitted via Bluetooth via a one-way broadcast?=0D
does it transmit all 3 tx to the receiver and just hopes they he will do=0D
the "right thing"?=0D
=0D
=0D
> =0D
> On 10/25/13 5:02 AM, Andreas Petersson wrote:=0D
>> =0D
>> =0D
>>> Worth thinking about the whole ecosystem of wallets involved;=0D
>>> they all have to handle double-spends gracefully to make tx=0D
>>> replacement of any kind user friendly. We should try to give=0D
>>> people a heads up that this is coming soon if that's your=0D
>>> thinking.=0D
>> =0D
>> If there is a situation where wallets are supposed to constantly=0D
>> monitor the tx propagation and recreate their transactions with=0D
>> different fees, this would make a lot of usecases inconvenient. =0D
>> half-offline bluetooth transactions, users with unstable=0D
>> connections, battery power lost, etc, etc. - and last but not least=0D
>> power concerns on hardware wallets on the bitcoincard (tx signing=0D
>> drains a significant amount of power and should therefore only be=0D
>> done once)=0D
>> =0D
>>