On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > Making it fee-per-kilobyte is a bad idea, in my opinion; users don't care > how many kilobytes their transactions are, and they will just be confused > if they're paying for a 10mBTC burger and are asked to pay 10.00011 or > 9.9994 because the merchant has no idea how many kilobytes the paying > transaction will be. > Wouldn't the idea be that the user always sees 10mBTC no matter what, but the receiver may receive less if the user decides to pay with a huge transaction? 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. Or alternatively that wallets let you override the safeguards on spending unconfirmed coins when the user is sure that they trust the sender.