From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin TX fill-or-kill deterministic behavior
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:20:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpfKpzeq7qSUV5w6JNtTE1-zu58Zg_KCbFAx0JTGeeUG1g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP33d9zHaf9A9+2BG-YHZEf_pA2SSTNL-_Ht4tT22qV6Xw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>> So, to be specific... a A->B chain of transactions, that collectively
>> meet the network's fee requirements?
>
> Yes.
ACK on the concept
>> Ideally the fee, if any, is market based and negotiated. Problem is... like
>> democracy, no matter how ugly it is, people have trouble finding a
>> better system :)
>
> I think this is something we can explore over the coming years. I
> favor having people commonly pass transactions around outside the
> broadcast network with the transactions and their dependencies being
> broadcast only when there's a lack of trust between recipient and
> sender. The block chain is an optional service after all.
Agreed. A TX is just a signed message. No reason why it -must- use
mainnet's distributed notary service.
>> Furthermore, many of these ideas -- like sending TX's directly to the
>> merchant -- involve far more direct payee<->payer communication on the
>> part of the wallet client than is currently envisioned
>
> Yes, though it's worth remembering that the original Bitcoin design
> did have participants communicate directly. When I talked with Satoshi
> in 2009 he saw the pay-to-IP-address mode imagined as the normal way
> to make payments, with pay-to-address being used as a kind of backup
> for when the recipient was offline.
>
> In the end that's not how things evolved, but it the pendulum could
> easily swing back the other way.
IIRC pay-to-IP was removed because it was unreliable -and- detrimental
to privacy? ISTR Satoshi specifically disliking the privacy elements
of p2ip.
But I also have a "gut feeling" that these sorts of payments and
direct communication should be done via a wholly separate protocol
than the bitcoin P2P protocol. Doing p2ip as it was done originally,
inside the bitcoin P2P protocol, was a mistake. Extensible as it is,
I think a better job -- and faster evolution -- can be done with a
separate protocol on a separate port.
Some HTTP derivative would probably make life easier for mobile
payments and firewalled scenarios, and for client->merchant
communications, for instance.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-14 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-12 18:38 [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin TX fill-or-kill deterministic behavior Jeff Garzik
2012-04-12 19:19 ` Alan Reiner
2012-04-12 19:26 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-04-13 8:35 ` Andy Parkins
2012-04-13 10:04 ` Mike Hearn
2012-04-13 16:41 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-04-14 15:13 ` Mike Hearn
2012-04-14 20:20 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2012-04-14 21:27 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-04-14 22:49 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-04-15 8:12 ` Andreas Schildbach
2012-04-15 10:54 ` Jorge Timón
2012-04-15 15:17 ` Jeff Garzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+8xBpfKpzeq7qSUV5w6JNtTE1-zu58Zg_KCbFAx0JTGeeUG1g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jgarzik@exmulti.com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mike@plan99.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox