<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2013-12-03&#xA;📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Gavin Andresen &lt;gavinandresen at gmail.com&gt;wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;     optional uint64 allowfee    tag number=1000&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Let&#39;s just use a normal/low tag number. The extensions mechanism is great&#xA;for people who want to extend the protocol outside the core development&#xA;process. It&#39;d be weird if nobody ever used the low numbers again though.&#xA;&#xA;Tag numbers are varint encoded so using smaller ones does have a minor&#xA;efficiency benefit, it&#39;s not just aesthetics :)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Allow up to allowfee satoshis to be deducted from the amount paid to be&#xA;&gt; used to pay Bitcoin network transaction fees. A wallet implementation must&#xA;&gt; not reduce the amount paid for fees more than allowfee, and transaction&#xA;&gt; fees must be equal to or greater than the amount reduced.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Hmmm. Why &#34;allow&#34;? Should it not be called min_fee instead? Wallets would&#xA;have to attach at least that much in fees, right?&#xA;&#xA;Also, why describe it as reducing the amount paid? Which output would be&#xA;reduced in value? Why not just have it be added to the total value&#xA;displayed to the user and the outputs are left alone/not reduced.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; We also want to allow users to pay MORE in fees, if they need to&#xA;&gt; (fragmented wallet, maybe, or big CoinJoin transaction) or decide to.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I like the idea but it seems this gets us back to the original problem -&#xA;senders don&#39;t care about confirmations, ever, not even if they make an&#xA;annoying set of transactions. The protocol allows users to submit&#xA;transactions directly to receivers, I guess, if the receiver does not like&#xA;the transactions they get they could potentially reject the payment. But&#xA;I&#39;d hope that&#39;s really rare.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; PS: I think there was also consensus that the BIP72  request=...   should&#xA;&gt; be shortened to just r=... (save 6 chars in QR codes).  Unless somebody&#xA;&gt; objects, I&#39;ll change the BIP and the reference implementation code to make&#xA;&gt; it so...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Sweet, thanks!&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131203/26e3aaec/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>