📅 Original date posted:2013-12-03 📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at ...

Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /

npub1m23…2np2

2023-06-07 15:10:10

in reply to nevent1q…xvp0

📅 Original date posted:2013-12-03
📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:57:23PM +0100, Taylor Gerring wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at 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 because 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 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’s stand lie in that realm? Transactions should work the same regardless of who is on the receiving end.
>
> > any fee at all is confusing because you intuitively expect that if you send 1 mBTC, then 1 mBTC will arrive the other end
> The paradigm of sending money has an explicit cost is not new... I think people are used to Western Union/PayPal and associated fees, no? It’s okay to have a fee if it’s reasonable, so let’s 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131203/a2ca1e26/attachment.sig>;

Author Public Key

npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2

Seen on

wss://relay.noswhere.com wss://relay.nostr.band

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 15:10:10

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "0d2fe94bde632cc1197e595c4e67003eacda246691986246d36c7882f8d51644", "pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa", "created_at": 1686150610, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "f082c8a0fa2ac5febf83583d19b2776fdb1875fb3ab2eae661676f17ee054405", "", "root" ], [ "e", "438839a14599b8916f6576668716aa9a40f0f06b5fee0e1423e937c9e5e8857c", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "cf0c36d3cbefb87dda6e830ae3e537314270c42aa31124b0838c6619e712088e" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-12-03\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:57:23PM +0100, Taylor Gerring wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e 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 because 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 transactions tend to be free and people just understand that the money isn't going to be spendable for a while.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e person-to-business transactions. For person-to-person transactions\n\u003e Why should there be two classes of transactions? Where does paying a local business at a farmer’s stand lie in that realm? Transactions should work the same regardless of who is on the receiving end.\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e any fee at all is confusing because you intuitively expect that if you send 1 mBTC, then 1 mBTC will arrive the other end\n\u003e The paradigm of sending money has an explicit cost is not new... I think people are used to Western Union/PayPal and associated fees, no? It’s okay to have a fee if it’s reasonable, so let’s inform the user what the estimated cost is to send a transaction in a reasonable amount of time.\n\nIndeed.\n\nTransparency on fees is going to be good from a marketing point of view\nas well: fact is, Bitcoin transations have fees involved, and if we're\nup-front and honest about those fees and what they are and why, we\ndemystify the system and give people the confidence to tell others about\nthe cost-advantages of Bitcoin, and at the same time, combat fud about\nfees with accurate and honest information.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000f9102d27cfd61ea9e8bb324593593ca3ce6ba53153ff251b3\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 490 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131203/a2ca1e26/attachment.sig\u003e", "sig": "918487059d716299df07a980a4f551b40bfa2280933fbb0b71ce71ef47fe4f72bf06a8513d84399c3494c2ec35d49a549c7dc513254d02d19e895fe92b780dfa" }