Greg Sanders [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2020-05-23 📝 Original message:So I think the question to ...

📅 Original date posted:2020-05-23
📝 Original message:So I think the question to ask would be "why can't we just make sure it's
not 64?"

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:24 AM Greg Sanders <gsanders87 at gmail.com> wrote:

> AFAIU the number was picked to protect against CVE-2017-12842 covertly.
> See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16885
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16885/files>; which updated the
> text to explicitly mention this fact.
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:20 AM Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello list,
>>
>> I have been trying to CPFP a transaction using OP_RETURN, because the
>> remaining output value would have been lower than the dust threshold.
>>
>> The scriptPubkey of the output was OP_RETURN + OP_0, and there was a
>> single p2wsh input.
>>
>> The result is a 60 bytes transaction (without witness), that gets
>> rejected because it is lower than MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE, which
>> is equal to 82 bytes.
>>
>> Why is that value so high? Would it make sense to lower it to 60?
>>
>>
>> Thomas
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20200523/eb76670e/attachment.html>;