Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin TX fill-or-kill deterministic behavior

From: Mike Hearn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:13:47 +0200

> So, to be specific... a A->B chain of transactions, that collectively
> meet the network's fee requirements?

Yes.

> Ideally the fee, if any, is market based and negotiated. Problem is... like
> democracy, no matter how ugly it is, people have trouble finding a
> better system :)

I think this is something we can explore over the coming years. I
favor having people commonly pass transactions around outside the
broadcast network with the transactions and their dependencies being
broadcast only when there's a lack of trust between recipient and
sender. The block chain is an optional service after all.

> Furthermore, many of these ideas -- like sending TX's directly to the
> merchant -- involve far more direct payee<->payer communication on the
> part of the wallet client than is currently envisioned

Yes, though it's worth remembering that the original Bitcoin design
did have participants communicate directly. When I talked with Satoshi
in 2009 he saw the pay-to-IP-address mode imagined as the normal way
to make payments, with pay-to-address being used as a kind of backup
for when the recipient was offline.

In the end that's not how things evolved, but it the pendulum could
easily swing back the other way.