{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1t9txg5aevth45pu9hcz075tj3ch25fydn8c38wew90qjjdjv3rqq3r6cf0","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1t9txg5aevth45pu9hcz075tj3ch25fydn8c38wew90qjjdjv3rqq3r6cf0","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2011-09-15\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Luke-Jr argues that \"non-standard\" transactions with insufficient fees should not be penalized as they are policy decisions, not protocol violations.\n📝 Original message:Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:57:00 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e\u003e I'm looking for review of this pull request:\n\u003e\u003e    https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/517\n\u003e \"Non-standard\" transactions, or those with \"insufficient\" fees should not be\n\u003e penalised. These are properly relay/miner policy decisions, not protocol\n\u003e violations, and should be made more easily configurable, not punished for\n\u003e configuration.\n\u003e\n\u003e\nA few non-standard transactions are probably legitimate.  A whole bunch \nof them are probably not.  I would think that assigning a point or two \nof badness to a peer sending one is pretty reasonable, with the \nunderstanding that we would need to adjust that as the network evolves."}