Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-12-02 📝 Original message:PPv1 doesn't have any ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-12-02
📝 Original message:PPv1 doesn't have any notion of fee unfortunately. I suppose it could be
added easily, but we also need to launch the existing feature set.
There's code pending review to implement PPv1 in bitcoinj, unfortunately
it's currently not passing unit tests and the author can't figure out why.
I didn't have time to debug it yet myself. I'm hopeful we can get it
working and merged by EOY.
It may be time to start talking about timelines for 0.9. I am wondering if
floating fees should be broken out of the 0.9 release and launched in a
quick 0.10 followup - if that were to be done then I think 0.9 could go to
beta relatively soon, like early next year. There have been a lot of
improvements already and it'd be a shame to block them all further.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> > "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."
>
> <vendor hat: on>
>
> BitPay noticed this detail last week. We were noticing that some
> transactions were not even reaching our bitcoind border routers (edge
> nodes), due to low/no fees. That led to a long discussion of all
> things fee-related. SPV fees are a big issue. Getting
> child-pays-for-parent in some form out to miners is another. Getting
> a smart, dynamic fee market Gavin mentions is a big need.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131202/7981a1ce/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:PPv1 doesn't have any notion of fee unfortunately. I suppose it could be
added easily, but we also need to launch the existing feature set.
There's code pending review to implement PPv1 in bitcoinj, unfortunately
it's currently not passing unit tests and the author can't figure out why.
I didn't have time to debug it yet myself. I'm hopeful we can get it
working and merged by EOY.
It may be time to start talking about timelines for 0.9. I am wondering if
floating fees should be broken out of the 0.9 release and launched in a
quick 0.10 followup - if that were to be done then I think 0.9 could go to
beta relatively soon, like early next year. There have been a lot of
improvements already and it'd be a shame to block them all further.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> > "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."
>
> <vendor hat: on>
>
> BitPay noticed this detail last week. We were noticing that some
> transactions were not even reaching our bitcoind border routers (edge
> nodes), due to low/no fees. That led to a long discussion of all
> things fee-related. SPV fees are a big issue. Getting
> child-pays-for-parent in some form out to miners is another. Getting
> a smart, dynamic fee market Gavin mentions is a big need.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131202/7981a1ce/attachment.html>;