1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1VoCoK-0001Ze-QX
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:48:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-bk0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-bk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VoCoJ-0003am-TD
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:48:16 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id mx12so6502522bkb.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 04 Dec 2013 05:48:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.204.243.2 with SMTP id lk2mr44244bkb.94.1386164889230; Wed,
04 Dec 2013 05:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.204.237.74 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 05:48:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131204130643.GA5313@tilt>
References: <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>
<CANEZrP1PLKemiUEgMJRGdiZXt7o=0_5fhLKYY0x3Ngb_iEm+2w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T322nCvynRCL6Mb9C0f5EuJSfMDTSGiU+_JsYoSCb=_kQ@mail.gmail.com>
<op.w7jnreqwyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
<CANEZrP3D4WhXTdMAT7B=DaXEOSdXESc+bU0n7enu7hSaGtns8A@mail.gmail.com>
<e4515a76-b4c1-4a5f-a884-6d692b8d3466@email.android.com>
<CANEZrP287DH6JSMjAdu53_omrA96f5aQMZKObT1=VV5vqk=JBA@mail.gmail.com>
<20131204130643.GA5313@tilt>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:48:08 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: EIEdwXCh9CvwlArPMQhWLyN8Ayk
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2D_9AZXT2b5cgyiO3T9Udhk33tbNxBYSa16W7xL7_woA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org]
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1VoCoJ-0003am-TD
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:48:17 -0000
--f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> replace-by-fee is no less speculative than your original proposals;
> you're also trying to convince people that things should work
> differently re: fees
The original proposal I started this thread with hasn't even received
comments - presumably it's uncontroversial. The other discussions are about
how to handle fees in requests that use the payment protocol, which isn't
currently used anywhere so doing things differently isn't possible.
On the other hand you have been talking about a fundamental change to the
behaviour of how all Bitcoin nodes operate, which is off topic for this
thread.
If you have something specific to say about how floating fees should be
managed by SPV wallets or how fees should be negotiated when the payment
protocol is in use, this thread is appropriate. Otherwise please take it
elsewhere.
--f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W=
ed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai=
lto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>></span>=
wrote:<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,2=
04,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D""><div clas=
s=3D"h5">
<span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">replace-by-fee is no less speculative t=
han your original proposals;</span><br></div></div>
you're also trying to convince people that things should work<br>
differently re: fees</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The original proposal =
I started this thread with hasn't even received comments - presumably i=
t's uncontroversial. The other discussions are about how to handle fees=
in requests that use the payment protocol, which isn't currently used =
anywhere so doing things differently isn't possible.</div>
<div><br></div><div>On the other hand you have been talking about a fundame=
ntal change to the behaviour of how all Bitcoin nodes operate, which is off=
topic for this thread.</div><div><br></div><div>If you have something spec=
ific to say about how floating fees should be managed by SPV wallets or how=
fees should be negotiated when the payment protocol is in use, this thread=
is appropriate. Otherwise please take it elsewhere.=C2=A0</div>
</div></div></div>
--f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929--
|
