From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VoKN4-0002gx-KD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:52:38 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.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-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VoKN3-0004G8-By for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:52:38 +0000 Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt10.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id rB4LqUOs076384; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:52:30 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 rB4Lq1w0040923 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:52:18 GMT Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:51:58 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: <20131204215158.GA5924@tilt> References: <20131204130643.GA5313@tilt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 5f71c988-5d2e-11e3-94fa-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgYUHFAXAgsB AmUbWVVeVV97WmM7 YwhPZQFDY0lGQQdp VldMSlVNFUsqcxh9 Rx9ZUhl2dwxEezBx Zk9mWj5eCkN7Jk91 SlNRQW9TeGZhPWMC WUQOJh5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4lGjk1 WxEEEn0hEEAeDyw1 I1QdEmBUF0IQP0Mu KjMA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 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: petertodd.org] X-Headers-End: 1VoKN3-0004G8-By 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: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:52:39 -0000 --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:48:08PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd wrote: >=20 > > replace-by-fee is no less speculative than your original proposals; > > you're also trying to convince people that things should work > > differently re: fees >=20 >=20 > The original proposal I started this thread with hasn't even received > comments - presumably it's uncontroversial. The other discussions are abo= ut > how to handle fees in requests that use the payment protocol, which isn't > currently used anywhere so doing things differently isn't possible. >=20 > On the other hand you have been talking about a fundamental change to the > behaviour of how all Bitcoin nodes operate, which is off topic for this > thread. >=20 > If you have something specific to say about how floating fees should be > managed by SPV wallets or how fees should be negotiated when the payment > protocol is in use, this thread is appropriate. Otherwise please take it > elsewhere. Other than you, replacement for fee changing isn't controversial; I know this because no-one other than you comments on it... just like the fundemental changes involving your proposed hardfork presumably. (which I did comment on) Besides, "Happily, there does not have to be One Correct Answer here. Let wallets compete, and may the best user experience win..." --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000f9102d27cfd61ea9e8bb324593593ca3ce6ba53153ff251b3 --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSn6P9AAoJECSBQD2l8JH7/zsH/3gWXSGg4wpK3DxjtTeNSLwG Qh6JIFIVfu8ida/k8XLJXIHeCw/iuW4aUSXUk3UpVqoDXsAADwg5xlUFWcODZFsy ePOoTPsrMcDt3Df2gK1IbbJEkvNJgGIWnY4tR5Ypp/NG5J9hJod8fDAcd1dBFvzY EKTtZ1ZA1+jih36xogVtQdgw1o+J6t6u05Vjm+qLilDlL988I0dTSKXgV4AnLDdY QMKIvWmhleDvRS9pacDEyFFayj8Yat6cxfE9hF6e8v9GCYGGSxuHNnWYvtd+NMo4 /eBpyW8HFij0nMPVn1CrxXxmF5rrBbbkGfk5gkFTUTNdzN4FxRKwf1dPR//rPNo= =k0EG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0--