On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:57:23PM +0100, Taylor Gerring wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Mike Hearn 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