Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0P_uzEQ2OG2FTXyD2Zw4RzujNBxKbKD04CSS1sLNpLUUQ@mail.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>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:44:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2hf2853w9f4__Ji9v3eRRU0u6pEzPxAmFN+iH067gtnA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015383e4e6eeea04ec8e384b
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Floating fees and SPV clients
Precedence: list

--089e015383e4e6eeea04ec8e384b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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.

There's code pending review to implement PPv1 in bitcoinj, unfortunately
it's currently not passing unit tests and the author can't figure out why.
I didn't have time to debug it yet myself. I'm hopeful we can get it
working and merged by EOY.

It may be time to start talking about timelines for 0.9. I am wondering if
floating fees should be broken out of the 0.9 release and launched in a
quick 0.10 followup - if that were to be done then I think 0.9 could go to
beta relatively soon, like early next year. There have been a lot of
improvements already and it'd be a shame to block them all further.


On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> > "The payment protocol at least would need some notion of fee, or possibly
> > (better?) the ability for a recipient to specify some inputs as well as
> some
> > outputs."
>
> <vendor hat: on>
>
> BitPay noticed this detail last week.  We were noticing that some
> transactions were not even reaching our bitcoind border routers (edge
> nodes), due to low/no fees.  That led to a long discussion of all
> things fee-related.  SPV fees are a big issue.  Getting
> child-pays-for-parent in some form out to miners is another.  Getting
> a smart, dynamic fee market Gavin mentions is a big need.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/
>

--089e015383e4e6eeea04ec8e384b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">PPv1 doesn&#39;t have any notion of fee unfortunately. I s=
uppose it could be added easily, but we also need to launch the existing fe=
ature set.<div><br></div><div>There&#39;s code pending review to implement =
PPv1 in bitcoinj, unfortunately it&#39;s currently not passing unit tests a=
nd the author can&#39;t figure out why. I didn&#39;t have time to debug it =
yet myself. I&#39;m hopeful we can get it working and merged by EOY.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It may be time to start talking about timelines for 0.9=
. I am wondering if floating fees should be broken out of the 0.9 release a=
nd launched in a quick 0.10 followup - if that were to be done then I think=
 0.9 could go to beta relatively soon, like early next year. There have bee=
n a lot of improvements already and it&#39;d be a shame to block them all f=
urther.</div>
<div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Jeff Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</=
a>&gt;</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 class=3D"im">On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:3=
3 AM, Mike Hearn &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net">mike@plan99.net</a>=
&gt; wrote:<br>

&gt; &quot;The payment protocol at least would need some notion of fee, or =
possibly<br>
&gt; (better?) the ability for a recipient to specify some inputs as well a=
s some<br>
&gt; outputs.&quot;<br>
<br>
</div>&lt;vendor hat: on&gt;<br>
<br>
BitPay noticed this detail last week. =C2=A0We were noticing that some<br>
transactions were not even reaching our bitcoind border routers (edge<br>
nodes), due to low/no fees. =C2=A0That led to a long discussion of all<br>
things fee-related. =C2=A0SPV fees are a big issue. =C2=A0Getting<br>
child-pays-for-parent in some form out to miners is another. =C2=A0Getting<=
br>
a smart, dynamic fee market Gavin mentions is a big need.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Jeff Garzik<br>
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist<br>
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" target=3D"=
_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>

--089e015383e4e6eeea04ec8e384b--