Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-09-15 🗒️ Summary of this message: Penalizing ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-09-15
🗒️ Summary of this message: Penalizing "non-standard" transactions or those with insufficient fees is not fair. It should be configurable, not punished, as it could ban legitimate nodes.
📝 Original message:On Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:56:24 AM kjj wrote:
> Luke-Jr wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:57:00 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> >> I'm looking for review of this pull request:
> >> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/517
> >
> > "Non-standard" transactions, or those with "insufficient" fees should not
> > be penalised. These are properly relay/miner policy decisions, not
> > protocol violations, and should be made more easily configurable, not
> > punished for configuration.
>
> A few non-standard transactions are probably legitimate. A whole bunch
> of them are probably not. I would think that assigning a point or two
> of badness to a peer sending one is pretty reasonable, with the
> understanding that we would need to adjust that as the network evolves.
No. There is no such thing as "non-standard transactions" really; it is simply
"transactions outside of the bounds that I as a user/miner will relay/accept".
It is perfectly legitimate for other users/miners to relay/accept transactions
more liberally. By penalising for transactions falling outside of your
*personal policies*, you would end up banning many legitimate nodes.
🗒️ Summary of this message: Penalizing "non-standard" transactions or those with insufficient fees is not fair. It should be configurable, not punished, as it could ban legitimate nodes.
📝 Original message:On Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:56:24 AM kjj wrote:
> Luke-Jr wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:57:00 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> >> I'm looking for review of this pull request:
> >> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/517
> >
> > "Non-standard" transactions, or those with "insufficient" fees should not
> > be penalised. These are properly relay/miner policy decisions, not
> > protocol violations, and should be made more easily configurable, not
> > punished for configuration.
>
> A few non-standard transactions are probably legitimate. A whole bunch
> of them are probably not. I would think that assigning a point or two
> of badness to a peer sending one is pretty reasonable, with the
> understanding that we would need to adjust that as the network evolves.
No. There is no such thing as "non-standard transactions" really; it is simply
"transactions outside of the bounds that I as a user/miner will relay/accept".
It is perfectly legitimate for other users/miners to relay/accept transactions
more liberally. By penalising for transactions falling outside of your
*personal policies*, you would end up banning many legitimate nodes.