Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Vn5vq-0008GH-FR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 01 Dec 2013 12:15:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Vn5vp-0002gx-88 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 01 Dec 2013 12:15:26 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Vn5vi-0004SV-7V for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 01 Dec 2013 13:15:18 +0100 Received: from e179039132.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.179.39.132]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 01 Dec 2013 13:15:18 +0100 Received: from andreas by e179039132.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 01 Dec 2013 13:15:18 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 13:15:04 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: e179039132.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1Vn5vp-0002gx-88 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 12:15:26 -0000 On 12/01/2013 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > I propose the following plan: Thanks taking the initiative and writing this up! > If a wallet gets a reject message for a tx that has a fee that are by > its own estimates acceptable, what should it do? What if only some nodes > report that and others don't? As long as the tx is not confirmed (by a broadcast), apps can offer to bump up the fee a little bit.