<div dir="ltr">Right, as I said earlier:<div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">"The payment protocol at least would need some notion of fee, or possibly (better?) the ability for a recipient to specify some inputs as well as some outputs."</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
</div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Having thought about it a bit more, I think it's better to just have a fee field that lets the receiver request the sender to attach the given fee. The outputs would have less value associated with them, so effectively the seller folds the fee into the price. If the seller is charging a round price like 1 mBTC, the user sees "1 mBTC" as the price, even if behind the scenes the created tx only sends 0.99999 BTC</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Allowing specification of inputs seems to add too much complexity in other cases, like when value isn't specified at all.</span></div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Patrick Mead <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:patrick@meadia.com.au" target="_blank">patrick@meadia.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">First time posting to this mailing list so feel free to ignore me if<br>
this is a stupid idea.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Mike Hearn <<a href="mailto:mike@plan99.net">mike@plan99.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> We need to get away from the notion of senders attaching fees anyway. This is the wrong<br>
> way around because it’s the recipient who cares about double spending risk, not the sender.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>It seems to me that a common problem currently revolves around<br>
accepting transactions in<br>
retail scenarios, such as paying for a sandwich from Subway. A<br>
solution could be to give the<br>
vendor responsibility for setting the fee, which means they can choose<br>
the trade-off that works<br>
best for them in terms of fee size vs. speed of processing.<br>
<br>
Idea:<br>
Add a "fee" parameter to the payment URI specification.<br>
When processing the transaction, the customer's UI should show only<br>
the total price, including<br>
both the transfer amount and the fee. The vendor only accepts the<br>
transaction if the customer<br>
uses the right amount and fee. If the fee is too small (for example,<br>
the user might be using an<br>
older wallet and has selected a fee of zero), the vendor can issue a<br>
refund transaction<br>
immediately and tell the user to try again.<br>
<br>
Pros:<br>
- could easily be implemented immediately<br>
- old wallets would still be supported by just manually entering the<br>
fee as users do now<br>
- no greater risk of double spending on either side<br>
- maintains the distributed nature of the system<br>
- relies on humans to judge the fee (who are much less likely to<br>
spiral infinitely upwards)<br>
- flexible enough to support varying sizes of transaction and varying<br>
degrees of security<br>
<br>
Cons<br>
- requires the vendor to have sufficient understanding of Bitcoin to<br>
make the trade-off<br>
- doesn't solve the problem of selecting a fee for transactions<br>
between individuals/laymen<br>
- doesn't solve fee selection for automated transactions such as<br>
mixing/de/refragmentation<br>
<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><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 AppDynamics Pro!<br>
<a href="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk" target="_blank">http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development" target="_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>