On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 18:46 -0400, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Sunday, July 10, 2011 6:12:43 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 16:30 -0400, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > > Again, take it or leave it, but in the meantime you're asking for trouble
> > > from users who feel they're being forced to pay more than they have to.
> > > Or perhaps rather than trouble, that decision will increase awareness of
> > > other clients that don't try to control the users. That could be good
> > > too.
> > 
> > Its not a question of forcing users to pay anything, its a question of
> > how best to solve the "Im just gonna throw random crap in the chain for
> > the lulz" problem without causing too many side effects.  As with many
> > things Bitcoin, the temporary solution was something that was fairly
> > quickly hacked together to solve the problem without causing too many
> > problems.  What needs to happen is an actual solution, Bitcoin, in
> > theory, allows for all kinds of cool things, but the solution here needs
> > carefully thought out and implemented, not just keep lowering the fees.
> 
> The point is that we are already accepting lower fees. People (probably) want 
> to pay those lower fees. Yet there's developers writing their software to get 
> in the way between the user and pool willing to do business.
Read what I wrote again, and don't reply off-list.