1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jamie.mcnaught@gmail.com>) id 1Vnptj-0005CU-RL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:20:19 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.178 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.178; envelope-from=jamie.mcnaught@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f178.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Vnpth-0002Nb-Vp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:20:19 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id ca18so6478645wib.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 05:20:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.47.236 with SMTP id g12mr120922wjn.92.1386076811684;
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 05:20:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.62.66 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:20:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131203120734.GA18895@tilt>
References: <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>
<CANEZrP0P9NTJXs22K8-4hnLkxV7Uo+tjvWKJ8msgxiFgJW6xvg@mail.gmail.com>
<05CEDEB4-BA29-4ED3-8CFC-D3504727DB4D@gmail.com>
<20131203120734.GA18895@tilt>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:20:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAO4nzO+BJYJGjg0z-duAU6kR7c6Og75P_SYjtBo7sPDQ4yxX9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jamie McNaught <jamie.mcnaught@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86d376fdf33104eca127fd
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: doubleclick.net]
-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
(jamie.mcnaught[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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: 1Vnpth-0002Nb-Vp
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Floating fees and SPV clients
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:20:20 -0000
--047d7b86d376fdf33104eca127fd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all, first post so go easy on me!
Background/Intro: I'm a C/C++ software engineer with a keen interest in
Bitcoin working for everyone. I've spent the last couple of months pitching
Bitcoin to merchants & end users (previously I mined),
While I agree as Peter said, transparency with fees is good and leaving it
to the wallet designer to decide to either show / hide these (as Gavin
suggested) there is no denying that users hate fees/charges. That's why in
the UK so many online retailers offer free delivery (again perceived as a
zero value add charge). Infact, if you ask the average consumer, they only
have a mild inkling that there are fees paid by the merchants for using
credit cards.
So I'd agree with Gavin's proposed spec in an optional uint64 minfee which
senders(wallets) should deduct from the total paid to the receiver. If
however the sender is doing a dust collection txn (surely hugely unusual
for legit users?) then the sender should pay the additional costs. Does
that make "minfee" actually "minfeeperkb"? Perhaps, but wallets should aim
to not display such implementation details.
As a newb though, I have to ask, how does the receiver/requester/merchant
enforce these fee requests are respected?
On 3 December 2013 12:07, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:57:23PM +0100, Taylor Gerring wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> >
> > > It may be acceptable that receivers don't always receive exactly what
> they requested, at least for person-to-business transactions. For
> person-to-person transactions of course any fee at all is confusing becau=
se
> you intuitively expect that if you send 1 mBTC, then 1 mBTC will arrive t=
he
> other end. I wonder if we'll end up in a world where buying things from
> shops involves paying fees, and (more occasional?) person-to-person
> transactions tend to be free and people just understand that the money
> isn't going to be spendable for a while.
> >
> >
> > > person-to-business transactions. For person-to-person transactions
> > Why should there be two classes of transactions? Where does paying a
> local business at a farmer=92s stand lie in that realm? Transactions shou=
ld
> work the same regardless of who is on the receiving end.
> >
> > > any fee at all is confusing because you intuitively expect that if yo=
u
> send 1 mBTC, then 1 mBTC will arrive the other end
> > The paradigm of sending money has an explicit cost is not new... I thin=
k
> people are used to Western Union/PayPal and associated fees, no? It=92s =
okay
> to have a fee if it=92s reasonable, so let=92s inform the user what the
> estimated cost is to send a transaction in a reasonable amount of time.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Transparency on fees is going to be good from a marketing point of view
> as well: fact is, Bitcoin transations have fees involved, and if we're
> up-front and honest about those fees and what they are and why, we
> demystify the system and give people the confidence to tell others about
> the cost-advantages of Bitcoin, and at the same time, combat fud about
> fees with accurate and honest information.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 000000000000000f9102d27cfd61ea9e8bb324593593ca3ce6ba53153ff251b3
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
> organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance
> affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into you=
r
> Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics
> Pro!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D84349351&iu=3D/4140/ostg.=
clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--047d7b86d376fdf33104eca127fd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi all, first post so go easy on me!<div><br></div><div>Ba=
ckground/Intro: I'm a C/C++ software engineer with a keen interest in B=
itcoin working for everyone. I've spent the last couple of months pitch=
ing Bitcoin to merchants & end users (previously I mined),<div>
<br></div><div>While I agree as Peter said, transparency with fees is good =
and leaving it to the wallet designer to decide to either show / hide these=
(as Gavin suggested) there is no denying that users hate fees/charges. Tha=
t's why in the UK so many online retailers offer free delivery (again p=
erceived as a zero value add charge). Infact, if you ask the average consum=
er, they only have a mild inkling that there are fees paid by the merchants=
for using credit cards.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So I'd agree with Gavin's proposed spec in an=
=A0<span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">optional uin=
t64 minfee which senders(wallets) should deduct from the total paid to the =
receiver. If however the sender is doing a dust collection txn (surely huge=
ly unusual for legit users?) then the sender should pay the additional cost=
s. Does that make "minfee" actually "minfeeperkb"? Perh=
aps, but wallets should aim to not display such implementation details.</sp=
an></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span=
></div><div><span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">As =
a newb though, I have to ask, how does the receiver/requester/merchant enfo=
rce these fee requests are respected?</span></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 3 December 2013 12:07, Peter Todd <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@p=
etertodd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12=
:57:23PM +0100, Taylor Gerring wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Mike Hearn <<a href=3D"mailto:mike@pla=
n99.net">mike@plan99.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > It may be acceptable that receivers don't always receive exac=
tly what they requested, at least for person-to-business transactions. =A0F=
or person-to-person transactions of course any fee at all is confusing beca=
use you intuitively expect that if you send 1 mBTC, then 1 mBTC will arrive=
the other end. I wonder if we'll end up in a world where buying things=
from shops involves paying fees, and (more occasional?) person-to-person t=
ransactions tend to be free and people just understand that the money isn&#=
39;t going to be spendable for a while.<br>
><br>
><br>
> > person-to-business transactions. =A0For person-to-person transact=
ions<br>
> Why should there be two classes of transactions? Where does paying a l=
ocal business at a farmer=92s stand lie in that realm? Transactions should =
work the same regardless of who is on the receiving end.<br>
><br>
> > any fee at all is confusing because you intuitively expect that i=
f you send 1 mBTC, then 1 mBTC will arrive the other end<br>
> The paradigm of sending money has an explicit cost is not new... I thi=
nk people are used to Western Union/PayPal and associated fees, no? =A0It=
=92s okay to have a fee if it=92s reasonable, so let=92s inform the user wh=
at the estimated cost is to send a transaction in a reasonable amount of ti=
me.<br>
<br>
</div>Indeed.<br>
<br>
Transparency on fees is going to be good from a marketing point of view<br>
as well: fact is, Bitcoin transations have fees involved, and if we're<=
br>
up-front and honest about those fees and what they are and why, we<br>
demystify the system and give people the confidence to tell others about<br=
>
the cost-advantages of Bitcoin, and at the same time, combat fud about<br>
fees with accurate and honest information.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
--<br>
'peter'[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pet=
ertodd.org</a><br>
000000000000000f9102d27cfd61ea9e8bb324593593ca3ce6ba53153ff251b3<br>
</div></div><br>-----------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------<br>
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT<br>
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance=
<br>
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your<=
br>
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynami=
cs Pro!<br>
<a href=3D"http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D84349351&iu=
=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk" target=3D"_blank">http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam=
pad/clk?id=3D84349351&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk</a><br>___________________=
____________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--047d7b86d376fdf33104eca127fd--
|
