<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1t9txg5aevth45pu9hcz075tj3ch25fydn8c38wew90qjjdjv3rqq3r6cf0</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1t9txg5aevth45pu9hcz075tj3ch25fydn8c38wew90qjjdjv3rqq3r6cf0</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2011-09-15&#xA;🗒️ Summary of this message: Luke-Jr argues that penalizing &#34;non-standard&#34; 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.&#xA;📝 Original message:Luke-Jr wrote:&#xA;&gt; On Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:56:24 AM kjj wrote:&#xA;&gt;&gt; Luke-Jr wrote:&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:57:00 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I&#39;m looking for review of this pull request:&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;     https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/517&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt; &#34;Non-standard&#34; transactions, or those with &#34;insufficient&#34; fees should not&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt; be penalised. These are properly relay/miner policy decisions, not&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt; protocol violations, and should be made more easily configurable, not&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt; punished for configuration.&#xA;&gt;&gt; A few non-standard transactions are probably legitimate.  A whole bunch&#xA;&gt;&gt; of them are probably not.  I would think that assigning a point or two&#xA;&gt;&gt; of badness to a peer sending one is pretty reasonable, with the&#xA;&gt;&gt; understanding that we would need to adjust that as the network evolves.&#xA;&gt; No. There is no such thing as &#34;non-standard transactions&#34; really; it is simply&#xA;&gt; &#34;transactions outside of the bounds that I as a user/miner will relay/accept&#34;.&#xA;&gt; It is perfectly legitimate for other users/miners to relay/accept transactions&#xA;&gt; more liberally. By penalising for transactions falling outside of your&#xA;&gt; *personal policies*, you would end up banning many legitimate nodes.&#xA;It is certainly true that standardness is an artificial construct that &#xA;only has meaning to this particular implementation of the software, but &#xA;no meaning in the context of the protocol or the system as a whole.&#xA;&#xA;On the other hand, the vast, vast majority of all transactions follow a &#xA;particular pattern.  If someone gives you one that doesn&#39;t match the &#xA;standard pattern, you might be a little suspicious, but it is no big &#xA;deal.  But, if they emit dozens or hundreds, it is hardly unreasonable &#xA;to disconnect them until you figure out what&#39;s going on.</html></oembed>