📅 Original date posted:2012-04-14
📝 Original message:> 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.
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 10:04:16
in reply to nevent1q…pngr
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 10:04:16Event JSON
{
"id": "f290b274e9a1a28e5c37dca9b7c21a7c109498da6112fee45e18c322677a721f",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686132256,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5f0cc6578a9ca4b7b0857c070ede1826db3227f161e70524c04566da5c5a56a8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9467cf3e8b3707f20ab161c073af94798f1eeeab06b75111fb6db130b0287323",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-04-14\n📝 Original message:\u003e So, to be specific... a A-\u003eB chain of transactions, that collectively\n\u003e meet the network's fee requirements?\n\nYes.\n\n\u003e Ideally the fee, if any, is market based and negotiated. Problem is... like\n\u003e democracy, no matter how ugly it is, people have trouble finding a\n\u003e better system :)\n\nI think this is something we can explore over the coming years. I\nfavor having people commonly pass transactions around outside the\nbroadcast network with the transactions and their dependencies being\nbroadcast only when there's a lack of trust between recipient and\nsender. The block chain is an optional service after all.\n\n\u003e Furthermore, many of these ideas -- like sending TX's directly to the\n\u003e merchant -- involve far more direct payee\u003c-\u003epayer communication on the\n\u003e part of the wallet client than is currently envisioned\n\nYes, though it's worth remembering that the original Bitcoin design\ndid have participants communicate directly. When I talked with Satoshi\nin 2009 he saw the pay-to-IP-address mode imagined as the normal way\nto make payments, with pay-to-address being used as a kind of backup\nfor when the recipient was offline.\n\nIn the end that's not how things evolved, but it the pendulum could\neasily swing back the other way.",
"sig": "40a23555ef7ae15a591e2b964d2dd125848fc93244c67785b706e2d42a9a6eef412c102cf68a2f97864976ee1235fec649f8d42972c6fe047e16ad9a66d21067"
}