Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TfdmO-0007Wo-Bd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:42:20 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TfdmJ-0005aL-1e for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:42:20 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id qd14so5117883ieb.34 for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:42:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.216.201 with SMTP id os9mr589404igc.5.1354570929673; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:42:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.171.73 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:42:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121128233619.GA6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20121129170713.GD6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 16:42:09 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1TfdmJ-0005aL-1e Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts 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, 03 Dec 2012 21:42:20 -0000 On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > 4) A longer term reason - in time, people may choose to not broadcast > transactions at all in some cases. I think how network speed will be > funded post-inflation is still an open question. Assuming the simplest > arrangement where users pay fees, getting transactions into the chain > has a cost. In cases where you trust the sender to not double spend on > you, you may keep a fee-less transaction around "in your pocket". Then > when it's your turn to pay, you use some unconfirmed transactions to > do so. This brings up an additional point. If we're mutually trusting parties (or secured by some kind of external mechanism), and you've given me a payment which I haven't broadcast for confirmation=E2=80=94 and later we make another transactions I should be able to offer you the original unconfirmed txn and ask if you'd instead be willing to write a replacement that combines both payments.