On August 9, 2016 4:55:17 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann
wrote:
>On 08/09/2016 02:43 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>
Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we only
charge
if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the total".
On 08/09/2016 02:43 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>
>>> Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we only
>>> charge
>>> if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the total".
>> I will admit that the argument about sudden fee changes is a bit
On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we only
>> charge
>> if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the total".
>
> I will admit that the argument about sudden fee changes is a bit weak. But
> I'm curious; what is the benefit
On August 9, 2016 10:51:36 PM GMT+03:00, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
>On 08/09/2016 12:37 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>> On 08/09/2016 11:20 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There are three things being discussed here, so I want to provide
>>> space to think about them separately.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
On 08/09/2016 12:37 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 11:20 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>
>>
>> There are three things being discussed here, so I want to provide
>> space to think about them separately.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, how is the minimum sensible pledge displayed: as a dollar
>> amo
On 08/09/2016 11:20 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>
> There are three things being discussed here, so I want to provide
> space to think about them separately.
>
>
>
> Finally, how is the minimum sensible pledge displayed: as a dollar
> amount, or as a ratio? I think it's clear that the amount shoul
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:56:30AM -0600, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 08:09 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> > On 08/09/2016 06:31 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> >> On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I suggest we specify it as a maximum fee percentage, however, t
On 08/09/2016 08:09 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 06:31 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>>
>>> I suggest we specify it as a maximum fee percentage, however, to help
>>> adapt to future fee differences. That being the case, I propose we
On 08/09/2016 06:31 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>
>
> On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 0
On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> >> On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> >>> What happens if
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >> On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> >>> What happens if someone wants to set their limit lower than the
> >>> minimum
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >> On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> >>> Clean slate because context is getting absurd and this is important
> >>> reg
12 matches
Mail list logo
