From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VnUk6-0004jI-7L for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:44:58 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VnUk4-0000PS-DA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:44:58 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id uz6so12771543obc.20 for ; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 06:44:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.196.3 with SMTP id ii3mr55972175obc.11.1385995491010; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 06:44:51 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.3.134 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:44:50 -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 15:44:50 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MMNRT2PfRhWOF3cqPg99lQxThJc Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015383e4e6eeea04ec8e384b X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 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: 1VnUk4-0000PS-DA 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 14:44:58 -0000 --089e015383e4e6eeea04ec8e384b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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/ > --089e015383e4e6eeea04ec8e384b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
PPv1 doesn't have any notion of fee unfortunately. I s= uppose it could be added easily, but we also need to launch the existing fe= ature set.

There's code pending review to implement = PPv1 in bitcoinj, unfortunately it's currently not passing unit tests a= nd 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 a= nd 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 bee= n a lot of improvements already and it'd be a shame to block them all f= urther.



On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Jeff Garzik <<= a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:3= 3 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net= > 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 a= s some
> outputs."

<vendor hat: on>

BitPay noticed this detail last week. =C2=A0We were noticing that some
transactions were not even reaching our bitcoind border routers (edge
nodes), due to low/no fees. =C2=A0That led to a long discussion of all
things fee-related. =C2=A0SPV fees are a big issue. =C2=A0Getting
child-pays-for-parent in some form out to miners is another. =C2=A0Getting<= br> a smart, dynamic fee market Gavin mentions is a big need.

--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitpay.com/

--089e015383e4e6eeea04ec8e384b--