From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VZi3o-0003eZ-0c for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:08:20 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from petersson.at ([213.239.210.117]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1VZi3m-0001Vz-Lp for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:08:19 +0000 Received: by petersson.at (Postfix, from userid 33) id 794726701C8; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:08:12 +0200 (CEST) To: Mark Friedenbach X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:func.inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:08:12 +0200 From: Andreas Petersson In-Reply-To: <526A7255.1060101@monetize.io> References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin> <20131024144358.GA17142@savin> <20131024145447.GA19949@savin> <20131025070708.GA5760@savin> <91968c56640bf7647325728f490b9257@localhost> <526A7255.1060101@monetize.io> Message-ID: X-Sender: andreas@petersson.at User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.2.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1VZi3m-0001Vz-Lp Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Making fee estimation better 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: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:08:20 -0000 =0D > There's no reason the signing can't be done all at once. The wallet=0D > app would create and sign three transactions, paying avg-std.D, avg,=0D > and avg+std.D fee. It just waits to broadcast the latter two until it=0D > has to.=0D =0D i see several reasons why this is problematic. =0D So how would that work in a setting where the user signs a transaction=0D created offline, transmitted via Bluetooth via a one-way broadcast?=0D does it transmit all 3 tx to the receiver and just hopes they he will do=0D the "right thing"?=0D =0D =0D > =0D > On 10/25/13 5:02 AM, Andreas Petersson wrote:=0D >> =0D >> =0D >>> Worth thinking about the whole ecosystem of wallets involved;=0D >>> they all have to handle double-spends gracefully to make tx=0D >>> replacement of any kind user friendly. We should try to give=0D >>> people a heads up that this is coming soon if that's your=0D >>> thinking.=0D >> =0D >> If there is a situation where wallets are supposed to constantly=0D >> monitor the tx propagation and recreate their transactions with=0D >> different fees, this would make a lot of usecases inconvenient. =0D >> half-offline bluetooth transactions, users with unstable=0D >> connections, battery power lost, etc, etc. - and last but not least=0D >> power concerns on hardware wallets on the bitcoincard (tx signing=0D >> drains a significant amount of power and should therefore only be=0D >> done once)=0D >> =0D >>