> So, to be specific... a A->B chain of transactions, that collectively > meet the network's fee requirements?
Yes. > Ideally the fee, if any, is market based and negotiated. Problem is... like > democracy, no matter how ugly it is, people have trouble finding a > better system :) I think this is something we can explore over the coming years. I favor having people commonly pass transactions around outside the broadcast network with the transactions and their dependencies being broadcast only when there's a lack of trust between recipient and sender. The block chain is an optional service after all. > Furthermore, many of these ideas -- like sending TX's directly to the > merchant -- involve far more direct payee<->payer communication on the > part of the wallet client than is currently envisioned Yes, though it's worth remembering that the original Bitcoin design did have participants communicate directly. When I talked with Satoshi in 2009 he saw the pay-to-IP-address mode imagined as the normal way to make payments, with pay-to-address being used as a kind of backup for when the recipient was offline. In the end that's not how things evolved, but it the pendulum could easily swing back the other way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
