Published on: 2013-12-04T21:51:58+00:00
In this email exchange, Mike Hearn and Peter Todd discuss the topic of replacing fees in Bitcoin transactions. Todd argues that replacing fees is as speculative as Hearn's original proposal, while Hearn counters by saying that his original proposal hasn't received any comments and must be uncontroversial. They also discuss the specific discussions around fee handling in the payment protocol, which is not currently used anywhere. Hearn accuses Todd of talking about fundamental changes to how all Bitcoin nodes operate, which is off-topic for this thread.Another participant in the conversation suggests that wallets should compete, and the best user experience should win. The email ends with Todd's contact information and a digital signature.In another email exchange, Peter Todd questions the validity of replace-by-fee and discusses the discussions around fee handling in the payment protocol, which is not currently used anywhere. He notes that Hearn's original proposal has not received comments, implying it is uncontroversial. However, he mentions that Todd's suggestion of a fundamental change to the behavior of all Bitcoin nodes is off-topic for the thread at hand.There is also an email exchange where Mike Hearn requested that the thread not be derailed and encouraged those who wished to discuss different methods to start a new thread. Another participant responded by stating that the concept of replace-by-fee was no less speculative than Hearn's original proposals. This exchange took place on a public mailing list and included an attached digital signature.In a forum thread, someone requested others not to deviate from the topic and stated that their statement is factually correct. They advised others to start another thread if they want to convince people about different ways of doing things.In another message, Mike Hearn discusses the issue of allow_fee and its challenges when implemented with merchants. He mentions that there is rough consensus at the dark wallet conf that replacement for fee bumping is a good thing and should be supported. He also plans on proposing it for formal inclusion in their wallet best practices guidelines.The issue of cultural norms is highlighted as complicating the implementation of allow_fee in Bitcoin transactions. Merchants expect customers to pay the sticker price, and deviating from this norm is rare. Hearn mentions that without a clean fail mechanism, there may be disputes due to payments not clearing before the exchange rate shifts. He also discusses the need for an effective payment confirmation process that can handle edge cases and cultural differences.The Bitcoin developer community discusses the implementation of features like "allowfee" and "minfee" in Bitcoin network transaction fees. The "allowfee" specification aims to provide an allowance against the purchase price for network fees, while the "minfee" specification suggests adding a minimum fee to the amount paid to cover miner's transaction fees. Wallet software must respect these specifications when calculating fees. There is consensus among the community on both proposals.The proposed specifications, 'allowfee' and 'minfee,' are being discussed in the context of Bitcoin network transaction fees. According to the 'allowfee' specification, a wallet implementation cannot reduce the amount paid for fees by more than allowfee satoshis, and transaction fees must be equal to or greater than the amount reduced. With 'minfee,' wallet software should add minfee satoshis to the amount the user pays and include at least minfee in the transaction created to pay miner's transaction fees. However, wallet software may request that the user pays more if it creates a complex transaction or judges that minfee is not sufficient for the transaction to be accepted by the network.A merchant proposes a solution to prevent unexpected high fees by including a min_fee_per_kilobyte and max_fee in PaymentDetails. The sender would agree to pay the extra fee if it exceeds the max_fee, and the interior or merchant fees would be deducted from the first output. The UI could show the payment "price" with the sum of original outputs, merchant fees (interior), and sender fees (exterior) if applicable. This allows the merchant to pay fees in most cases while not having to pay excessive fees if the sender wants to use a large transaction.In an email exchange between Mike Hearn and Taylor Gerring, they discuss the concept of fees for Bitcoin transactions. Hearn suggests creating new terminology to differentiate between interior fees (included in the price/receiver pays) and exterior fees (excluded from the price/sender pays). They also discuss the need for intuitive user interfaces to inform users about transaction fees.The challenges of navigating varying sender fees and UI implementations in wallets are mentioned. However, there are solutions available for those willing to explore them, and collaboration among wallet creators can improve the user experience.There is also a discussion on the challenges of sales tax and the US system of taxation, which can be confusing for consumers.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T06:45:52.863824+00:00