Quote from: gmaxwell on March 07, 2016, 10:50:29 PM

Quote from: Chronikka on March 07, 2016, 10:44:02 PM

The community here could have pointed that out just as easily.

Yep. Thought it often does a fairly inconsistent job. OP failed to actually mention or link to any of the discussion and only wrote about it in vague terms.

If I hadn't actually linked to the requests and quoted from the messages would you be saying "but it really is an unnecessary change" now? If you only went on what the OP said, I think it would sound pretty bad...

Unfortunately, there has been a rash of misinformation where I looked at it and thought exactly as you suggested-- this isn't important and other people will handle it-- and then people didn't handle it, and not it's being continually repeated as fact from so many directions that it seems hopeless to correct.

In this case, a pretty clear response took about 12 mouse clicks to bring up all the relevant messages and then copy and paste some quotes... which allowed fully contextualizing the issue. I hope it was a good investment. I wish I could turn back time and do this in a number of other places.

Understood. I read the OP and my first thought was...well what was the issue? I was going to ask but when I scrolled down I was surprised to see a response from you. I guess I was just wondering what compelled you to respond here.

To the OP I would say that I agree with most of what was written on the issue page. You said on Github:

Quote

my guess is whoever it was is using a client that does not auto adjust fees

There is already a mechanism to prevent accidental large fee transactions and to auto adjust. Its up to the user to make use of them. Anything additional should be implemented by a third party wallet. I understand you want to prevent accidental large fees but that really isn't something the base layer should be concerned with.