Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-bk0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20131204130643.GA5313@tilt>
References: <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>
	<CANEZrP3D4WhXTdMAT7B=DaXEOSdXESc+bU0n7enu7hSaGtns8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<e4515a76-b4c1-4a5f-a884-6d692b8d3466@email.android.com>
	<CANEZrP287DH6JSMjAdu53_omrA96f5aQMZKObT1=VV5vqk=JBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131204130643.GA5313@tilt>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:48:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2D_9AZXT2b5cgyiO3T9Udhk33tbNxBYSa16W7xL7_woA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Floating fees and SPV clients
Precedence: list

--f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> replace-by-fee is no less speculative than your original proposals;
> you're also trying to convince people that things should work
> differently re: fees


The original proposal I started this thread with hasn't even received
comments - presumably it's uncontroversial. The other discussions are about
how to handle fees in requests that use the payment protocol, which isn't
currently used anywhere so doing things differently isn't possible.

On the other hand you have been talking about a fundamental change to the
behaviour of how all Bitcoin nodes operate, which is off topic for this
thread.

If you have something specific to say about how floating fees should be
managed by SPV wallets or how fees should be negotiated when the payment
protocol is in use, this thread is appropriate. Otherwise please take it
elsewhere.

--f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929
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">On W=
ed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt;</span>=
 wrote:<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,2=
04,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D""><div clas=
s=3D"h5">
<span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">replace-by-fee is no less speculative t=
han your original proposals;</span><br></div></div>
you&#39;re also trying to convince people that things should work<br>
differently re: fees</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The original proposal =
I started this thread with hasn&#39;t even received comments - presumably i=
t&#39;s uncontroversial. The other discussions are about how to handle fees=
 in requests that use the payment protocol, which isn&#39;t currently used =
anywhere so doing things differently isn&#39;t possible.</div>
<div><br></div><div>On the other hand you have been talking about a fundame=
ntal change to the behaviour of how all Bitcoin nodes operate, which is off=
 topic for this thread.</div><div><br></div><div>If you have something spec=
ific to say about how floating fees should be managed by SPV wallets or how=
 fees should be negotiated when the payment protocol is in use, this thread=
 is appropriate. Otherwise please take it elsewhere.=C2=A0</div>
</div></div></div>

--f46d0420ab03d2d31f04ecb5a929--