On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> 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.