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 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.

Other than you, replacement for fee changing isn't controversial; I know
this because no-one other than you comments on it... just like the
fundemental changes involving your proposed hardfork presumably. (which
I did comment on)

Besides, "Happily, there does not have to be One Correct Answer here.
Let wallets compete, and may the best user experience win..."


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK 
Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.
Download it for free now!
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to