{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2011-09-15\n🗒️ 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.\n📝 Original message:On Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:56:24 AM kjj wrote:\n\u003e Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:57:00 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e I'm looking for review of this pull request:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e    https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/517\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e \"Non-standard\" transactions, or those with \"insufficient\" fees should not\n\u003e \u003e be penalised. These are properly relay/miner policy decisions, not\n\u003e \u003e protocol violations, and should be made more easily configurable, not\n\u003e \u003e punished for configuration.\n\u003e \n\u003e A few non-standard transactions are probably legitimate.  A whole bunch\n\u003e of them are probably not.  I would think that assigning a point or two\n\u003e of badness to a peer sending one is pretty reasonable, with the\n\u003e understanding that we would need to adjust that as the network evolves.\n\nNo. There is no such thing as \"non-standard transactions\" really; it is simply \n\"transactions outside of the bounds that I as a user/miner will relay/accept\". \nIt is perfectly legitimate for other users/miners to relay/accept transactions \nmore liberally. By penalising for transactions falling outside of your \n*personal policies*, you would end up banning many legitimate nodes."}