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 ) 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 ; 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 (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 In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:57:23 +0100 Message-Id: <05CEDEB4-BA29-4ED3-8CFC-D3504727DB4D@gmail.com> References: <5E4597E4-C1C7-4536-8CF0-82EDD7715DAB@plan99.net> <39921E12-B411-4430-9D56-04F53906B109@plan99.net> To: Mike Hearn 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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

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--