{"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 penalizing \"non-standard\" transactions or those with insufficient fees is not fair, as it is a policy decision, not a protocol violation. However, Gavin Andresen believes that assigning a point or two of badness to a peer sending one is reasonable.\n📝 Original message:Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e On Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:56:24 AM kjj wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:57:00 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I'm looking for review of this pull request:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e     https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/517\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \"Non-standard\" transactions, or those with \"insufficient\" fees should not\n\u003e\u003e\u003e be penalised. These are properly relay/miner policy decisions, not\n\u003e\u003e\u003e protocol violations, and should be made more easily configurable, not\n\u003e\u003e\u003e punished for configuration.\n\u003e\u003e A few non-standard transactions are probably legitimate.  A whole bunch\n\u003e\u003e of them are probably not.  I would think that assigning a point or two\n\u003e\u003e of badness to a peer sending one is pretty reasonable, with the\n\u003e\u003e understanding that we would need to adjust that as the network evolves.\n\u003e No. There is no such thing as \"non-standard transactions\" really; it is simply\n\u003e \"transactions outside of the bounds that I as a user/miner will relay/accept\".\n\u003e It is perfectly legitimate for other users/miners to relay/accept transactions\n\u003e more liberally. By penalising for transactions falling outside of your\n\u003e *personal policies*, you would end up banning many legitimate nodes.\nIt is certainly true that standardness is an artificial construct that \nonly has meaning to this particular implementation of the software, but \nno meaning in the context of the protocol or the system as a whole.\n\nOn the other hand, the vast, vast majority of all transactions follow a \nparticular pattern.  If someone gives you one that doesn't match the \nstandard pattern, you might be a little suspicious, but it is no big \ndeal.  But, if they emit dozens or hundreds, it is hardly unreasonable \nto disconnect them until you figure out what's going on."}