Greg Sanders [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-10-20 📝 Original message:I don't doubt the use ...

📅 Original date posted:2022-10-20
📝 Original message:I don't doubt the use case(it's why I opened the issue!). I didn't want the
proposal to die in case people found it odd that 61, 62, 63, but not 64
bytes ended up being broadcast able.

Perhaps this is not an issue, especially since this isn't a consensus
change like the Great Consensus Cleanup. Willing to change my proposal and
PR if people have no strong objections.

Greg

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 7:21 PM Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 08:50:07AM -0400, Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > Hello fellow Bitcoiners,
> >
> > After looking at some fairly exotic possible transaction types, I ran
> into
> > the current policy limit requiring transactions to be 85 non-witness
> > serialized bytes. This was introduced as a covert fix to policy fix
> > for CVE-2017-12842. Later the real motivation was revealed, but the
> > "reasonable" constant chosen was not.
> >
> > I'd like to propose relaxing this to effectively the value BlueMatt
> > proposed in the Great Consensus Cleanup: 65 non-witness bytes. This would
> > allow a single input, single output transaction with 4 bytes of OP_RETURN
> > padding, rather than padding out 21 bytes to get to p2wpkh size.
> >
> > The alternative would be to also allow anything below 64 non-witness
> bytes,
> > but this seems fraught with footguns for a few bytes gain.
>
> What footguns exactly? Spending a single input to OP_RETURN with no
> payload is
> a valid use to get rid of dust in the UTXO set.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221020/681a1206/attachment.html>;