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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1VnoA9-0003FR-PV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:29:09 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.50; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f50.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.219.50]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VnoA8-0005dd-QO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:29:09 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id n16so14637611oag.23 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:29:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.78.227 with SMTP id e3mr58674103oex.5.1386070143384; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:29:03 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.3.134 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:29:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T322nCvynRCL6Mb9C0f5EuJSfMDTSGiU+_JsYoSCb=_kQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CANEZrP3tGdFh6oG5fbX9JbU6sYbbex1cq=0tQB-0A4aDrdbXrQ@mail.gmail.com> <l7f97u$jdg$1@ger.gmane.org> <5E4597E4-C1C7-4536-8CF0-82EDD7715DAB@plan99.net> <l7fpbn$hf6$1@ger.gmane.org> <39921E12-B411-4430-9D56-04F53906B109@plan99.net> <CAGLkj4C9fyAX1CnB0oZH3BwLRQp6WOo9kLUqDhRUSA6y3LxYvg@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP1C=Hc-3f-rqQ+wYrPn-eUj52HjN+qRQdJMWvnP+dkK=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHLa0P_uzEQ2OG2FTXyD2Zw4RzujNBxKbKD04CSS1sLNpLUUQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP2hf2853w9f4__Ji9v3eRRU0u6pEzPxAmFN+iH067gtnA@mail.gmail.com> <CABsx9T3NQDPL6=pz5BD5DsP0qh0x3LJOCj2H3yY5tzL2_DivGA@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP1PLKemiUEgMJRGdiZXt7o=0_5fhLKYY0x3Ngb_iEm+2w@mail.gmail.com> <CABsx9T322nCvynRCL6Mb9C0f5EuJSfMDTSGiU+_JsYoSCb=_kQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:29:03 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: iffN2b01tlAnvk8dloN_5vm_9Wg Message-ID: <CANEZrP0P9NTJXs22K8-4hnLkxV7Uo+tjvWKJ8msgxiFgJW6xvg@mail.gmail.com> From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111bca487cc8504ec9f9a9d X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1VnoA8-0005dd-QO Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> 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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:29:10 -0000 --089e0111bca487cc8504ec9f9a9d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>wrote: > Making it fee-per-kilobyte is a bad idea, in my opinion; users don't care > how many kilobytes their transactions are, and they will just be confused > if they're paying for a 10mBTC burger and are asked to pay 10.00011 or > 9.9994 because the merchant has no idea how many kilobytes the paying > transaction will be. > Wouldn't the idea be that the user always sees 10mBTC no matter what, but the receiver may receive less if the user decides to pay with a huge transaction? 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. Or alternatively that wallets let you override the safeguards on spending unconfirmed coins when the user is sure that they trust the sender. --089e0111bca487cc8504ec9f9a9d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T= ue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href= =3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.c= om</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Making it fee-per-kilo= byte is a bad idea, in my opinion; users don't care how many kilobytes = their transactions are, and they will just be confused if they're payin= g for a 10mBTC burger and are asked to pay 10.00011 or 9.9994 because the m= erchant has no idea how many kilobytes the paying transaction will be.</div= > </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wouldn't the idea be that the us= er always sees 10mBTC no matter what, but the receiver may receive less if = the user decides to pay with a huge transaction?</div><div><br></div><div> It may be acceptable that receivers don't always receive exactly what t= hey requested, at least for person-to-business transactions. =C2=A0For pers= on-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 ot= her end. I wonder if we'll end up in a world where buying things from s= hops involves paying fees, and (more occasional?) person-to-person transact= ions tend to be free and people just understand that the money isn't go= ing to be spendable for a while. Or alternatively that wallets let you over= ride the safeguards on spending unconfirmed coins when the user is sure tha= t they trust the sender.</div> </div></div></div> --089e0111bca487cc8504ec9f9a9d--