-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
I think this US/other cultural issue is complicating things more than
we
appreciate.
I am trying to imagine in my head how all this will work and what it
will
look like with allow_fee, and I just can't see it.
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 12:09:42PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
Please don't try and drag this thread off topic. What I said is factually
correct. If you want to (again) try and convince people things should work
differently, start another thread for that.
replace-by-fee is no less speculative
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd p...@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
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:48:08PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd p...@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
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.comwrote:
optional uint64 allowfeetag number=1000
Let's just use a normal/low tag number. The extensions mechanism is great
for people who want to extend the protocol outside the core development
process. It'd be weird
I dont like the idea of putting the min fee in the hands of the receiver.
Seems like that will work against the best interests of senders in the long
run.
Why not try a different path of calculating the min fee like difficulty
retarget. You can analyse the last 2016 blocks to find the average fee
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Drak d...@zikula.org wrote:
I dont like the idea of putting the min fee in the hands of the receiver.
Seems like that will work against the best interests of senders in the long
run.
Senders have no interest in ever attaching any kind of fee, which is one
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:40:35AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
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.
Lets bang out a
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:09:51AM +, Drak wrote:
On 3 December 2013 11:03, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
UI once both are implemented is to not show anything in the default
case, and explain to the user why they have to pay extra in the unusual
case where they are spending a
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:29:03PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Andresen
gavinandre...@gmail.comwrote:
Making it fee-per-kilobyte is a bad idea, in my opinion; users don't care
how many kilobytes their transactions are, and they will just be confused
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
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.comwrote:
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
A merchant can always refuse the payment and refund it if that's a
practical problem.
No, they can't, at least not in bitcoin-qt: when the user pokes the SEND
button, the transaction is broadcast on the network, and then the merchant
is also told with the Payment/PaymentACK round-trip.
On 3 December 2013 11:46, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Gavin Andresen
gavinandre...@gmail.comwrote:
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
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:57:23PM +0100, Taylor Gerring wrote:
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
It may be acceptable that receivers don't always receive exactly what they
requested, at least for person-to-business transactions. For
person-to-person
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Taylor Gerring taylor.gerr...@gmail.comwrote:
Why should there be two classes of transactions? Where does paying a local
business at a farmer’s stand lie in that realm? Transactions should work
the same regardless of who is on the receiving end.
Lots and lots
On Dec 3, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Taylor Gerring taylor.gerr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why should there be two classes of transactions? Where does paying a local
business at a farmer’s stand lie in that realm? Transactions should work
The merchant wants to include a fee to ensure the transaction is
confirmed which is dependent on the fee per kilobyte, but they don't
want to pay unexpectedly high fees. So what about including a
min_fee_per_kilobyte and a max_fee in PaymentDetails describing what
fees the merchant will pay.
allowfee:
Allow up to allowfee satoshis to be deducted from the amount paid to be
used to pay Bitcoin network transaction fees. A wallet implementation
must not reduce the amount paid for fees more than allowfee, and
transaction fees must be equal to or greater than the amount reduced.
After reading all 99 messages in this thread, I think allowfee is just
about perfect.
It effectively lets merchants to give an allowance against the purchase
price for network fees, if they choose. It is still up to the sender
(and/or the sender's software) to get the fees right. Sometimes
First time posting to this mailing list so feel free to ignore me if
this is a stupid idea.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
We need to get away from the notion of senders attaching fees anyway. This is
the wrong
way around because it’s the recipient who
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Mike Hearn m...@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
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
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.
Lets bang out a merchant-pays-fee extension.
How about:
SPEC:
optional uint64
Lately I was pondering how to make floating fees and SPV wallets work well
together.
I propose the following plan:
1) 0.9 ships with something dead simple, like a command to query what a
node estimates and then clients just take the average, or cross-check a
centralised estimate against the P2P
Both can be combined into adapting the current generic messages (This
payment should become spendable shortly for incoming and This payment
has not been transmitted yet for outgoing transactions).
What would the new messages say?
We need to get away from the notion of senders attaching fees
On 12/01/2013 06:19 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
Both can be combined into adapting the current generic messages (This
payment should become spendable shortly for incoming and This payment
has not been transmitted yet for outgoing transactions).
What would the new messages say?
Well, for starters
This payment did not become spendable since xxx minutes. Check with the
sender if s/he paid the Bitcoin network fee. Check if your internet
connection is working properly. (incoming)
That seems reasonable.
The other message should be implementable today, I think? If numBroadcastPeers
0
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 06:19:14PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
Both can be combined into adapting the current generic messages (This
payment should become spendable shortly for incoming and This payment
has not been transmitted yet for outgoing transactions).
What would the new messages
Bitcoin is and always will be limited in capacity - transactions may not
confirm in a reasonable about of time because of high-demand and/or DoS
attacks.
I agree in the general case, but I was talking about the mobile wallet case
specifically (i.e. people who are sending money between
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 07:18:07PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
Bitcoin is and always will be limited in capacity - transactions may not
confirm in a reasonable about of time because of high-demand and/or DoS
attacks.
I agree in the general case, but I was talking about the mobile wallet case
30 matches
Mail list logo
