{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-12-01\n📝 Original message:On 12/01/2013 06:19 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Both can be combined into adapting the current generic messages (\"This\n\u003e\u003e payment should become spendable shortly\" for incoming and \"This payment\n\u003e\u003e has not been transmitted yet\" for outgoing transactions).\n\u003e\n\u003e What would the new messages say?\n\nWell, for starters I'd suggest something like\n\n\"This payment did not become spendable since xxx minutes. Check with the\nsender if s/he paid the Bitcoin network fee. Check if your internet\nconnection is working properly.\" (incoming)\n\n\"This payment still has not been transmitted. Check if your internet\nconnection is working properly.\" (outgoing)\n\n\u003e We need to get away from the notion of senders attaching fees anyway.\nThis is the wrong way around because it’s the recipient who cares about\ndouble spending risk, not the sender. That’s why merchants keep running\ninto issues with people attaching zero fees. Of course they attach zero\nfees. They know they aren’t going to double spend. It’s the merchant who\ncares about getting the security against that.\n\nGuess you're right. But as you said, we're not there yet.\n\n\u003e The UI for sending money should end up dead simple - no mention of\nfees anywhere, IMO.\n\nAgreed, if the sender does not need to pay a fee any more. On the\nreceiving side it of course needs to be mentioned. (Or the other way\nround, as of today.)\n\n\u003e Unfortunately we lack the protocol pieces to get the right UI here :(\nSomeone needs to sit down and figure out what the UI *should* look like,\nin the ideal world, and then work backwards to figure out what needs to\nbe done to get us there.\n\n(The ideal world doesn't need a UI for money.)\n\n\u003e\u003e For outgoing transactions, if it is very clear that they're never going\n\u003e\u003e to be confirmed, I'd like to see a \"Revoke\" button.\n\u003e\n\u003e Disagree. There should never be any cases in which a transaction\ndoesn’t confirm. Period. I know there have been bugs with bitcoinj that\ncould cause this in the past, but they were bugs and they got fixed/will\nget fixed.\n\u003e\n\u003e Settlement failure is just unacceptable and building a UI around the\npossibility will just encourage people to think of it as normal, when it\nshould not be so.\n\nI fully understand your point of view. However, its not the reality\ncurrently. (Hopefully it is, after the fixes to bitcoinj.)"}