rich1.0npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7https://nostr.ae/npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2013-12-01 📝 Original message:On 12/01/2013 06:19 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: >> Both can be combined into adapting the current generic messages ("This >> payment should become spendable shortly" for incoming and "This payment >> has not been transmitted yet" for outgoing transactions). > > What would the new messages say? Well, for starters I'd suggest something like "This payment did not become spendable since xxx minutes. Check with the sender if s/he paid the Bitcoin network fee. Check if your internet connection is working properly." (incoming) "This payment still has not been transmitted. Check if your internet connection is working properly." (outgoing) > We need to get away from the notion of senders attaching fees anyway. This is the wrong way around because it’s the recipient who cares about double spending risk, not the sender. That’s why merchants keep running into issues with people attaching zero fees. Of course they attach zero fees. They know they aren’t going to double spend. It’s the merchant who cares about getting the security against that. Guess you're right. But as you said, we're not there yet. > The UI for sending money should end up dead simple - no mention of fees anywhere, IMO. Agreed, if the sender does not need to pay a fee any more. On the receiving side it of course needs to be mentioned. (Or the other way round, as of today.) > Unfortunately we lack the protocol pieces to get the right UI here :( Someone needs to sit down and figure out what the UI *should* look like, in the ideal world, and then work backwards to figure out what needs to be done to get us there. (The ideal world doesn't need a UI for money.) >> For outgoing transactions, if it is very clear that they're never going >> to be confirmed, I'd like to see a "Revoke" button. > > Disagree. There should never be any cases in which a transaction doesn’t confirm. Period. I know there have been bugs with bitcoinj that could cause this in the past, but they were bugs and they got fixed/will get fixed. > > Settlement failure is just unacceptable and building a UI around the possibility will just encourage people to think of it as normal, when it should not be so. I fully understand your point of view. However, its not the reality currently. (Hopefully it is, after the fixes to bitcoinj.)