Michael Grønager [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-11-09 🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on ...
đź“… Original date posted:2011-11-09
🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on the validity of "half" transactions and the need for constraints to prevent spamming, with concerns about introducing non-standard protocols.
đź“ť Original message:Hi Gavin / Alan,
Agree that we would also need to consider these "half" transaction valid. At least for the time being up to the lock_time, and one could have an extra constrain - that the lock_time should be within e.g. 30minutes that would avoid the will-never-be-completed cases.
My main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that they might never be standard (I think a great number of clients will emerge - and this would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the p2p network it will be a seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, even across different clients. But I share your concern on the
I can, however, also understand your worries, and some other constraints should be introduced to ensure that not even short time spamming is possible...
/M
On 09/11/2011, at 20:13, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> 1. from client1 I issue a transaction containing one of the signatures, with a locktime e.g. 10 minutes from now and a sequence of 0. This transaction is now posted to the p2p network.
>
> As Alan said, that won't work-- it will not be relayed across the
> network because it isn't a valid transaction until it has enough
> signatures.
>
>> Alternatively, the transactions would need to be sent between clients using another protocol...
>
> Formats and protocols for gathering signatures are in the TODO
> category-- Alan's BIP 10 is the next piece of the puzzle, maybe a
> standardized http/https RESTful API, or HTTP/JSON, or protocol buffers
> and raw sockets, or... something... solution (or solutions) built on
> top of that makes sense.
>
> I don't think partially-signed transactions belong on the main Bitcoin
> P2P network, mostly because I don't see any way of preventing somebody
> from endlessly spamming bogus, will-never-be-completed partial
> transactions just to be annoying.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on the validity of "half" transactions and the need for constraints to prevent spamming, with concerns about introducing non-standard protocols.
đź“ť Original message:Hi Gavin / Alan,
Agree that we would also need to consider these "half" transaction valid. At least for the time being up to the lock_time, and one could have an extra constrain - that the lock_time should be within e.g. 30minutes that would avoid the will-never-be-completed cases.
My main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that they might never be standard (I think a great number of clients will emerge - and this would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the p2p network it will be a seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, even across different clients. But I share your concern on the
I can, however, also understand your worries, and some other constraints should be introduced to ensure that not even short time spamming is possible...
/M
On 09/11/2011, at 20:13, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> 1. from client1 I issue a transaction containing one of the signatures, with a locktime e.g. 10 minutes from now and a sequence of 0. This transaction is now posted to the p2p network.
>
> As Alan said, that won't work-- it will not be relayed across the
> network because it isn't a valid transaction until it has enough
> signatures.
>
>> Alternatively, the transactions would need to be sent between clients using another protocol...
>
> Formats and protocols for gathering signatures are in the TODO
> category-- Alan's BIP 10 is the next piece of the puzzle, maybe a
> standardized http/https RESTful API, or HTTP/JSON, or protocol buffers
> and raw sockets, or... something... solution (or solutions) built on
> top of that makes sense.
>
> I don't think partially-signed transactions belong on the main Bitcoin
> P2P network, mostly because I don't see any way of preventing somebody
> from endlessly spamming bogus, will-never-be-completed partial
> transactions just to be annoying.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen