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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VoCoK-0001Ze-QX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:48:16 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-bk0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-bk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VoCoJ-0003am-TD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:48:16 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id mx12so6502522bkb.6 for ; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 05:48:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.204.243.2 with SMTP id lk2mr44244bkb.94.1386164889230; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 05:48:09 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.237.74 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 05:48:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131204130643.GA5313@tilt> References: <20131204130643.GA5313@tilt> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:48:08 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: EIEdwXCh9CvwlArPMQhWLyN8Ayk Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929 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 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] 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: 1VoCoJ-0003am-TD 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 13:48:17 -0000 --f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > 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 The original proposal I started this thread with hasn't even received comments - presumably it's uncontroversial. The other discussions are about how to handle fees in requests that use the payment protocol, which isn't currently used anywhere so doing things differently isn't possible. 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. 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. --f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>= wrote:
replace-by-fee is no less speculative t= han your original proposals;
you're also trying to convince people that things should work
differently re: fees

The original proposal = I started this thread with hasn't even received comments - presumably i= t's uncontroversial. The other discussions are about how to handle fees= in requests that use the payment protocol, which isn't currently used = anywhere so doing things differently isn't possible.

On the other hand you have been talking about a fundame= ntal change to the behaviour of how all Bitcoin nodes operate, which is off= topic for this thread.

If you have something spec= ific 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.=C2=A0
--f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929--