From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Vnolk-0002HA-3U for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:08:00 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.80 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.80; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149080.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail149080.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.80]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Vnoli-0007P2-UI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:08:00 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt10.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id rB3C7pkc052509; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:07:51 GMT Received: from tilt (ppp-82-84-138-236.cust-adsl.tiscali.it [82.84.138.236] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id rB3C7aJh087276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:07:45 GMT Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:07:34 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: Taylor Gerring Message-ID: <20131203120734.GA18895@tilt> References: <39921E12-B411-4430-9D56-04F53906B109@plan99.net> <05CEDEB4-BA29-4ED3-8CFC-D3504727DB4D@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <05CEDEB4-BA29-4ED3-8CFC-D3504727DB4D@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 8764465b-5c13-11e3-b802-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgEUHFAXAgsB AmUbWlZeUFp7XWo7 YwhPZQFDY0lGQQdp VldMSlVNFUsqcx9y AU9kChl6cAdBfjBx YE9gXj5TW0J+cUB4 EFNRRmwFeGZhPWMC AkhYdR5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4lGjk1 WxEEEn0hEEAeDyw1 I1QdEmBUF0IQP0Mu KjMA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 82.84.138.236/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 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] X-Headers-End: 1Vnoli-0007P2-UI 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 12:08:00 -0000 --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:57:23PM +0100, Taylor Gerring wrote: >=20 > On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: >=20 > > It may be acceptable that receivers don't always receive exactly what t= hey requested, at least for person-to-business transactions. For person-to= -person transactions of course any fee at all is confusing because you intu= itively expect that if you send 1 mBTC, then 1 mBTC will arrive the other e= nd. I wonder if we'll end up in a world where buying things from shops invo= lves 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 spe= ndable for a while. >=20 >=20 > > person-to-business transactions. For person-to-person transactions > Why should there be two classes of transactions? Where does paying a loca= l business at a farmer=E2=80=99s stand lie in that realm? Transactions shou= ld work the same regardless of who is on the receiving end. >=20 > > 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=E2=80= =99s okay to have a fee if it=E2=80=99s reasonable, so let=E2=80=99s inform= the user what the estimated cost is to send a transaction in a reasonable = amount of time. Indeed. Transparency on fees is going to be good from a marketing point of view as well: fact is, Bitcoin transations have fees involved, and if we're up-front and honest about those fees and what they are and why, we demystify the system and give people the confidence to tell others about the cost-advantages of Bitcoin, and at the same time, combat fud about fees with accurate and honest information. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000f9102d27cfd61ea9e8bb324593593ca3ce6ba53153ff251b3 --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSncmFAAoJECSBQD2l8JH79HcIAL8lTx+7zKvZXulZKBo+fu/J b7FzCOgGm/sikmqc+BEdtxG6DC62bvM4x6XHYROgm1hvvfE9EDKLuZRiiphlTFjK yhGMhk0hlsobaV7m5cztGMIK49GmnVJOTpmfETgMky00npdKOtq5bkSMoiH42y48 dXtU3ZClwlgtlWmwc+4kNL+ePLAHe9y6t23P/1bFSpZ362KS/M0Ul6E3Q+62nddS lmAcqk9MuxkGJRqvNYFg8zgbyQNZW1HPN+F35ADcFQx3Tpxs9xmo/mSZwA0hOHSq RehdM3Jq97JeOPpXe3VzEDPAmE79i0McLDTGBKrn3YQ/0pOrYEfBcpEJD/3LduM= =F1TM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s--