Mike Hearn <mike <at> plan99.net> writes: > > > I know you will ignore this as usual, but the entire replace-by-fee folly is based on your fundamental misunderstanding of miner incentives.
I disagree, I think it is inevitable (but then of course I'm probably biased and why wouldn't I disagree given I run a service that allows for zero confirmation/double spend protection with third party trust.) Fixing it now avoids having people build on top of very weak/broken foundations (see Coinbase https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin- wizards/msg/29818058/) which would cause bigger problems down the line. One thing I don't understand from your position is how do you propose handling transactions being stuck for days or longer because of low fees? Even with floating fees you can have a sudden inflow of high fees transactions taking over post broadcasting your transaction. I also assume restricted replacement is very hard, especially from a UX point of view and adds undue complexity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
