From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
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 <taylor.gerring@gmail.com>) id 1VnodJ-0001SP-KC
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:59:17 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.176 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.176; envelope-from=taylor.gerring@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ea0-f176.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ea0-f176.google.com ([209.85.215.176])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1VnodH-0007H9-CU
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:59:17 +0000
Received: by mail-ea0-f176.google.com with SMTP id h14so9727179eaj.7
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:59:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.14.174.71 with SMTP id w47mr26923eel.113.1386071949080;
	Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:59:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.157] ([82.84.138.236])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a45sm81611710eem.6.2013.12.03.03.59.07
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:59:08 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_90B85D20-1FD8-4B03-A7A1-33B4072408B7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Taylor Gerring <taylor.gerring@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0P9NTJXs22K8-4hnLkxV7Uo+tjvWKJ8msgxiFgJW6xvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:57:23 +0100
Message-Id: <05CEDEB4-BA29-4ED3-8CFC-D3504727DB4D@gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP3tGdFh6oG5fbX9JbU6sYbbex1cq=0tQB-0A4aDrdbXrQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<l7f97u$jdg$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<5E4597E4-C1C7-4536-8CF0-82EDD7715DAB@plan99.net>
	<l7fpbn$hf6$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<39921E12-B411-4430-9D56-04F53906B109@plan99.net>
	<CAGLkj4C9fyAX1CnB0oZH3BwLRQp6WOo9kLUqDhRUSA6y3LxYvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<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>
	<CANEZrP0P9NTJXs22K8-4hnLkxV7Uo+tjvWKJ8msgxiFgJW6xvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
	(taylor.gerring[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: plan99.net]
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	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: 1VnodH-0007H9-CU
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:59:17 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_90B85D20-1FD8-4B03-A7A1-33B4072408B7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252


On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@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 transactions of course any fee at all is confusing =
because you intuitively expect that if you send 1 mBTC, then 1 mBTC will =
arrive the other end. I wonder if we'll end up in a world where buying =
things from shops involves paying fees, and (more occasional?) =
person-to-person transactions tend to be free and people just understand =
that the money isn't going to be spendable for a while.


> person-to-business transactions.  For person-to-person transactions
Why should there be two classes of transactions? Where does paying a =
local business at a farmer=92s stand lie in that realm? Transactions =
should work the same regardless of who is on the receiving end.

> any fee at all is confusing because you intuitively expect that if you =
send 1 mBTC, then 1 mBTC will arrive the other end
The paradigm of sending money has an explicit cost is not new... I think =
people are used to Western Union/PayPal and associated fees, no?  It=92s =
okay to have a fee if it=92s reasonable, so let=92s inform the user what =
the estimated cost is to send a transaction in a reasonable amount of =
time.

>  wonder if we'll end up in a world where buying things from shops =
involves paying fees
I stayed in a hotel for the first night here here in Milan, and there =
was an (anticipated) surcharge for the use of credit over cash. Again, =
nothing new here.


Fees are only confusing because existing clients do a terrible job of =
presenting the information to the user. In Hive Wallet, I=92m of the =
opinion that we should inform the user in an intuitive way to let them =
make an informed decision.=

--Apple-Mail=_90B85D20-1FD8-4B03-A7A1-33B4072408B7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=windows-1252

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dwindows-1252"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: =
after-white-space;"><div><br></div><div><div>On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:29 =
PM, Mike Hearn &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net">mike@plan99.net</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span =
style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline =
!important;">It may be acceptable that receivers don't always receive =
exactly what they requested, at least for person-to-business =
transactions. &nbsp;For person-to-person transactions of course any fee =
at all is confusing because you intuitively expect that if you send 1 =
mBTC, then 1 mBTC will arrive the other end. I wonder if we'll end up in =
a world where buying things from shops involves paying fees, and (more =
occasional?) person-to-person transactions tend to be free and people =
just understand that the money isn't going to be spendable for a =
while.</span></blockquote></div><br><div><br></div><div>&gt; =
person-to-business transactions. &nbsp;For person-to-person =
transactions</div><div>Why should there be two classes of transactions? =
Where does paying a local business at a farmer=92s stand lie in that =
realm? Transactions should work the same regardless of who is on the =
receiving end.</div><div><br></div><div>&gt;&nbsp;any fee at all is =
confusing because you intuitively expect that if you send 1 mBTC, then 1 =
mBTC will arrive the other end</div><div>The paradigm of sending money =
has an explicit cost is not new... I think people are used to Western =
Union/PayPal and associated fees, no? &nbsp;It=92s okay to have a fee if =
it=92s reasonable, so let=92s inform the user what the estimated cost is =
to send a transaction in a reasonable amount of =
time.</div><div><br></div><div>&gt; &nbsp;wonder if we'll end up in a =
world where buying things from shops involves paying fees</div><div>I =
stayed in a hotel for the first night here here in Milan, and there was =
an (anticipated) surcharge for the use of credit over cash. Again, =
nothing new here.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Fees are only =
confusing because existing clients do a terrible job of presenting the =
information to the user. In Hive Wallet, I=92m of the opinion that we =
should inform the user in an intuitive way to let them make an informed =
decision.</div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_90B85D20-1FD8-4B03-A7A1-33B4072408B7--