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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YLwQD-0003GM-08 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:15:21 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YLwQB-0004sI-5y for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:15:21 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YLwQ2-00051L-TN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:15:11 +0100 Received: from 2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it ([2.230.161.158]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:15:10 +0100 Received: from lawrence by 2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:15:10 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Lawrence Nahum Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 2.230.161.158 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/40.0.2214.111 Safari/537.36) X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1YLwQB-0004sI-5y Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4 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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:15:21 -0000 Mike Hearn plan99.net> writes: > > > I know you will ignore this as usual, but the entire replace-by-fee folly is based on your fundamental misunderstanding of miner incentives. I disagree, I think it is inevitable (but then of course I'm probably biased and why wouldn't I disagree given I run a service that allows for zero confirmation/double spend protection with third party trust.) Fixing it now avoids having people build on top of very weak/broken foundations (see Coinbase https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin- wizards/msg/29818058/) which would cause bigger problems down the line. One thing I don't understand from your position is how do you propose handling transactions being stuck for days or longer because of low fees? Even with floating fees you can have a sudden inflow of high fees transactions taking over post broadcasting your transaction. I also assume restricted replacement is very hard, especially from a UX point of view and adds undue complexity