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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VnUmw-0005Zl-Ip for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:47:54 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.212.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.177; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-wi0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VnUmp-0003Za-Qh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:47:54 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id cc10so4904020wib.10 for ; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 06:47:41 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6EwICQm/EFRrtgkAzIqTkj44hzJTgbrSIiYujGsedqc=; b=JafwhloRQUdRpnRgXawjHQoKZrK9QhomYc5bfO1Sjv0ob6iQcbtvSYCwtCydIqpATy ZWhMP/71A78GOcb99lG5UYHBBOUSO2XM1T5Ka7Jsnr5V6eCHr+3ZToCdBsLJijgiNCOV mlCTKTWuLReeFg2asx9r725bQSVNxJENTMoYy3JUpi54djMI854ATY6MOha5KAJvDKn7 Nnh3zZ1gL3M/wl+pY0iUmlXhyQmcyarJCsdOsBvjpwheKMUG6NgVyg71dscne0LBjrzG ZoTPw+c3npB1O4RvQSQnmRkYtKiD9MQ8SYZFDGP6vqxDKe3H3dg5A1gLpIymIYYSiy1F yoag== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmcqgXpswh1VLNNfHL7gSRBqP1L7QrPWqJ+S0CPpPXJcRakv61sfSY/HHMIYsgJZysgtJnA MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.19.201 with SMTP id h9mr18365376wie.36.1385995661557; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 06:47:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.164.164 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:47:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <5E4597E4-C1C7-4536-8CF0-82EDD7715DAB@plan99.net> <39921E12-B411-4430-9D56-04F53906B109@plan99.net> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:47:41 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 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] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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: 1VnUmp-0003Za-Qh 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: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:47:54 -0000 Current rough timeline proposed for 0.9 was end-of-January, IIRC. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > PPv1 doesn't have any notion of fee unfortunately. I suppose it could be > added easily, but we also need to launch the existing feature set. > > There's code pending review to implement PPv1 in bitcoinj, unfortunately > it's currently not passing unit tests and the author can't figure out why. I > didn't have time to debug it yet myself. I'm hopeful we can get it working > and merged by EOY. > > It may be time to start talking about timelines for 0.9. I am wondering if > floating fees should be broken out of the 0.9 release and launched in a > quick 0.10 followup - if that were to be done then I think 0.9 could go to > beta relatively soon, like early next year. There have been a lot of > improvements already and it'd be a shame to block them all further. > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: >> > "The payment protocol at least would need some notion of fee, or >> > possibly >> > (better?) the ability for a recipient to specify some inputs as well as >> > some >> > outputs." >> >> >> >> BitPay noticed this detail last week. We were noticing that some >> transactions were not even reaching our bitcoind border routers (edge >> nodes), due to low/no fees. That led to a long discussion of all >> things fee-related. SPV fees are a big issue. Getting >> child-pays-for-parent in some form out to miners is another. Getting >> a smart, dynamic fee market Gavin mentions is a big need. >> >> -- >> Jeff Garzik >> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist >> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ > > -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/