<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2013-12-02&#xA;📝 Original message:On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Mike Hearn &lt;mike at plan99.net&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt; &#34;The payment protocol at least would need some notion of fee, or possibly&#xA;&gt; (better?) the ability for a recipient to specify some inputs as well as some&#xA;&gt; outputs.&#34;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;vendor hat: on&gt;&#xA;&#xA;BitPay noticed this detail last week.  We were noticing that some&#xA;transactions were not even reaching our bitcoind border routers (edge&#xA;nodes), due to low/no fees.  That led to a long discussion of all&#xA;things fee-related.  SPV fees are a big issue.  Getting&#xA;child-pays-for-parent in some form out to miners is another.  Getting&#xA;a smart, dynamic fee market Gavin mentions is a big need.&#xA;&#xA;-- &#xA;Jeff Garzik&#xA;Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist&#xA;BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/</html></oembed>