Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VnoLt-000467-RE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:41:17 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.49; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VnoLt-0005kG-1l for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:41:17 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id x12so13107475wgg.28 for ; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:41:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.85.233 with SMTP id k9mr420031wjz.91.1386070870733; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:41:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.195.13.68 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:41:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <5E4597E4-C1C7-4536-8CF0-82EDD7715DAB@plan99.net> <39921E12-B411-4430-9D56-04F53906B109@plan99.net> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:41:10 +1000 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0102e3e0e23bcb04ec9fc5c4 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1VnoLt-0005kG-1l Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:41:18 -0000 --089e0102e3e0e23bcb04ec9fc5c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Wouldn't the idea be that the user always sees 10mBTC no matter what, but > the receiver may receive less if the user decides to pay with a huge > transaction? > If users want to pay with a huge transaction then it seems to me the user should cover that cost. Allowing users to pay merchants with 100K transactions full of dust and expecting them to eat the cost seems like a great way to enable bleed-the-merchant-dry attacks. RE: hiding or showing fees: I pointed out to Peter that there doesn't have to be One True Answer. Let wallets experiment with either hiding or exposing fees, and may the best user experience win. -- -- Gavin Andresen --089e0102e3e0e23bcb04ec9fc5c4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Wouldn't the idea= be that the user always sees 10mBTC no matter what, but the receiver may r= eceive less if the user decides to pay with a huge transaction?
<= /div>
=
If users want to pay with a huge trans= action then it seems to me the user should cover that cost. Allowing users = to pay merchants with 100K transactions full of dust and expecting them to = eat the cost seems like a great way to enable bleed-the-merchant-dry attack= s.


<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">RE: hiding or showing fees: =A0I pointed out to P= eter that there doesn't have to be One True Answer. =A0Let wallets expe= riment with either hiding or exposing fees, and may the best user experienc= e win.

--
--
Gavin Andresen
--089e0102e3e0e23bcb04ec9fc5c4--