Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <op.w7jnreqwyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
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>
	<op.w7jnreqwyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:40:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3D4WhXTdMAT7B=DaXEOSdXESc+bU0n7enu7hSaGtns8A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@taplink.co>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d08c4f7864e04ecb30835
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Floating fees and SPV clients
Precedence: list

--089e013d08c4f7864e04ecb30835
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I think this US/other cultural issue is complicating things more than we
appreciate.

I am trying to imagine in my head how all this will work and what it will
look like with allow_fee, and I just can't see it. Merchants want customers
to pay the sticker price, deviance from that social norm is extremely rare
even after the credit card company contracts that required it have been
invalidated. The only time it happens to me is when buying flight tickets
with credit cards: but it's only for that method, other payment methods are
still treated as "free" a.k.a interior fees.

If you walk into a physical shop and try to pay a large bill with bags of
pennies, the merchant won't enter into a complicated agreement where they
agree to split the cost of processing with you. They will just reject the
payment out of hand and tell you to get real. It has to be that way because
otherwise the shop would carry the cost of counting all the pennies and
hauling them around, not the buyer (who "knows" he put the right number of
pennies in the bags).

As a buyer, I do not care about whether my transaction will confirm. If I
try to pay with dust, there is no incentive for me to attach a higher fee
than allow_fee to make that confirm, especially if the merchant has no way
to reject the payment. What's more, as Jeremy points out, no clean fail
mechanism means large piles of manual work and lots of disputes due to
payments not clearing before the exchange rate shifts and other things like
that.

Trying to make the success of payment confirmation a two-person dance seems
to have so many edge cases it makes my head hurt. For most pay-to-merchant
cases, it has to be the receivers job to get a transaction confirmed, and
if the sender doesn't follow the instructions a payment should hard fail
and require trying again. If Bitcoin-Qt can't handle that today, that does
seem like a problem.

In the case of a transaction with too-low fee, either the payer can
> double-spend with a higher fee


You can't do that. When a tx doesn't have the right fee attached you're out
of luck today, except for the fact that some pools run with a custom child
pays for parent patch. So respending it would bump priority for some miners
and not others.

--089e013d08c4f7864e04ecb30835
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"><div=
>I think this US/other cultural issue is complicating things more than we a=
ppreciate.</div><div><br></div><div>I am trying to imagine in my head how a=
ll this will work and what it will look like with allow_fee, and I just can=
&#39;t see it. Merchants want customers to pay the sticker price, deviance =
from that social norm is extremely rare even after the credit card company =
contracts that required it have been invalidated. The only time it happens =
to me is when buying flight tickets with credit cards: but it&#39;s only fo=
r that method, other payment methods are still treated as &quot;free&quot; =
a.k.a interior fees.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If you walk into a physical shop and try to pay a large=
 bill with bags of pennies, the merchant won&#39;t enter into a complicated=
 agreement where they agree to split the cost of processing with you. They =
will just reject the payment out of hand and tell you to get real. It has t=
o be that way because otherwise the shop would carry the cost of counting a=
ll the pennies and hauling them around, not the buyer (who &quot;knows&quot=
; he put the right number of pennies in the bags).</div>
<div><br></div><div>As a buyer, I do not care about whether my transaction =
will confirm. If I try to pay with dust, there is no incentive for me to at=
tach a higher fee than allow_fee to make that confirm, especially if the me=
rchant has no way to reject the payment. What&#39;s more, as Jeremy points =
out, no clean fail mechanism means large piles of manual work and lots of d=
isputes due to payments not clearing before the exchange rate shifts and ot=
her things like that.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>Trying to make the success of payment confirmation a tw=
o-person dance seems to have so many edge cases it makes my head hurt. For =
most pay-to-merchant cases, it has to be the receivers job to get a transac=
tion confirmed, and if the sender doesn&#39;t follow the instructions a pay=
ment should hard fail and require trying again. If Bitcoin-Qt can&#39;t han=
dle that today, that does seem like a problem.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-lef=
t-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">In the case of a transaction with too-low f=
ee, either the payer can double-spend with a higher fee</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>You can&#39;t do that. When a tx doesn&#39;t have the r=
ight fee attached you&#39;re out of luck today, except for the fact that so=
me pools run with a custom child pays for parent patch. So respending it wo=
uld bump priority for some miners and not others.</div>
</div></div></div>

--089e013d08c4f7864e04ecb30835--