On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:48:08PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd <p...@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.
Other than you, replacement for fee changing isn't controversial; I know this because no-one other than you comments on it... just like the fundemental changes involving your proposed hardfork presumably. (which I did comment on) Besides, "Happily, there does not have to be One Correct Answer here. Let wallets compete, and may the best user experience win..." -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000f9102d27cfd61ea9e8bb324593593ca3ce6ba53153ff251b3
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. Download it for free now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
