>
> Did as you suggested, removed both setFocus() calls that happen after Send
>> is clicked
>>
>
> http://pastebin.com/j4adDpsM
> Now it crashes in something else within qt.
>
> I'm trying other things...
>
As I've said to you on IRC before, I think the problem is with this loop:
https://github.
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 t
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Dâniel Fraga wrote:
>
> Today, when a user uses bitcoin-qt client, it can make a backup
> of wallet.dat easily through menu, but when he/she needs to restore
> this backup, he/she must copy the file to the correct folder and
> execute "bitcoin-qt -rescan".
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 redu
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Wladimir wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>
>> https://github.com/litecoin-project/bitcoinomg/commits/0.8.5-OMG6
>> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/~warren/bitcoin-0.8.5-OMG6/
>> I've been backporting patches from master and Litecoi
Hello,
This concept, 'ABIS protocol,' has been many years in the making and is
presented here as a basic concept. It is sent to you for you review and
possible consideration. There will be further additions in the near
future. Looking forward to your reply and any contributions you may
provide.
I posted this on bitcoin-user, but nobody replied, so I'm
trying here.
Today, when a user uses bitcoin-qt client, it can make a backup
of wallet.dat easily through menu, but when he/she needs to restore
this backup, he/she must copy the file to the correct folder and
execute "bitco
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. T
Heh. People feel rises in sales tax elsewhere too. When VAT rises merchants
all raise their prices, they don't normally swallow it (or if they do, they
make a big fuss over how awesome they are).
The US system is a complete pain in the ass. You never know how much money
you actually need to pay fo
On Dec 3, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Taylor Gerring
> 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
> same regardless of who is on
Hi all, first post so go easy on me!
Background/Intro: I'm a C/C++ software engineer with a keen interest in
Bitcoin working for everyone. I've spent the last couple of months pitching
Bitcoin to merchants & end users (previously I mined),
While I agree as Peter said, transparency with fees is go
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Taylor Gerring 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 same regardless of who is on the receiving end.
>
Lots and lots of people are psycho
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:57:23PM +0100, Taylor Gerring wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Mike Hearn 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 transaction
On 3 December 2013 11:46, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Gavin Andresen
> wrote:
>>
>> 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 t
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Mike Hearn 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 transactions of course any fee at all is confusing because
> you intuitively expect th
>
> 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.
A
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>
> 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
>
> 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 wi
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:29:03PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Andresen
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > if they're payin
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:09:51AM +, Drak wrote:
> On 3 December 2013 11:03, Peter Todd 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 whole bunch
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 12:51:46PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> 4) Finally, when we next hard fork, we make v2 transactions include the
> output value in the signature, same as the output script (this proposal has
> been on the forums for a while now). That allows the fee data added in step
> 2 to be
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> 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
> if they're paying for a 10mBTC burger and are asked to pay 10.00011 or
> 9.9994 because t
On 3 December 2013 11:03, Peter Todd 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 whole bunch of dust.
Yes, that's the other problem with a merchant setting
Ok, revised spec:
SPEC:
message PaymentDeatils {
...
optional uint64 minfeetag number=8
Pay at least minfee satoshis in transaction fees. Wallet software should
add minfee to the amount the user authorizes and pays, and include at least
minfee in the transaction created to pay miner'
On 3 December 2013 10:45, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Drak 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
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:40:35AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Mike Hearn 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 merch
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Drak 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
reason we explo
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 2:40 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> 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 if nobody ever used th
29 matches
Mail list logo
