Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF41C002D for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:13:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6A241E54 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:13:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 7B6A241E54 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=r4a9A3Z/ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c7Z__TlK5kGv for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:13:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org F2A3641835 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2A3641835 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:13:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C4B5C00D9; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:13:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1666311197; x=1666397597; bh=wsuk0gIB8gMuqBek41CRZa3C+vL1 wO4tVeX2uYZ7G/I=; b=r4a9A3Z/KEVY+NC686yip8juAfV9OiLgu3xODT1KVh4l Ba3HfBqOiN72AEDKQJ9LSG3jiw9QOH1cr9LMalw3dp2oKRabeg4KtPAZpb3d2hBj eirEXSI2nUXPsX2d2tOuQVCp7J4cX5eaiVeYU1k7WAHjTJcpKL0VATwTQ2j3Xh56 Bgsa9yj7P+R43docXG0DoG/xGkbNdxTBuGMmG0bjkavYh6j11Z+zMNbMTUmbUw7R /eU+4NUhkZArkE0fUvK7r7lOW6h0m6BkKZHHwAKhOlinp7ojFdJUWB+LD7BIGT0g CEvrPn19sAsutWfDH7xkIIjfKztjlw6im6onMMiF2Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeeljedgfedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesghdtreertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgv rhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeelvdellefftddukeduffejgfefjeeuheeileeftdfgteduteeggeevueethfej tdenucffohhmrghinhepphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehushgvrhesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdr ohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:13:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 52A0E204BA; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:13:15 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Greg Sanders Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EjSiENbdfn4zh2pw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Relaxing minimum non-witness transaction size policy restriction X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:13:20 -0000 --EjSiENbdfn4zh2pw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 08:07:54PM -0400, Greg Sanders wrote: > I don't doubt the use case(it's why I opened the issue!). I didn't want t= he > proposal to die in case people found it odd that 61, 62, 63, but not 64 > bytes ended up being broadcast able. >=20 > Perhaps this is not an issue, especially since this isn't a consensus > change like the Great Consensus Cleanup. Willing to change my proposal and > PR if people have no strong objections. I think it's fine if we only restrict 64 bytes. We have a specific reason t= o do that and it's ok if we just tell people that. Only fairly-technical use-cas= es are affected anyway. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --EjSiENbdfn4zh2pw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAmNR5BcACgkQJIFAPaXw kfvWFAgAmnIqJRPpsr1u0ruE2wsLrzh9892+itS1B+/xO+3ajdfkOcBKZG0VE1ZM 51nIuG6Id/J09FRClavbycNx6fb0F9Ws0ScBaPEugdOow6XpH5a87PkZ3zfrG/39 j2gMx3yNFNynBRa1rUczYZ1OYVRybai2P+w91bnqNqy7G1uVbFH5VjkNU3DgM83A L7nnzmNXu/BggZN5OpSTo2szRRGHRKuu8OyH2WgKosZh7pZISXndj5I0xUgKk3hh og9k6DAi9K18Qq4SBvo17xvN1n9IQ+6B/YHHMrbi/UkQIxpviRbYZ86FS0kpZpMA YR5yHLUZuskh3YhdLHyB+lPEzl6l0g== =H7WP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EjSiENbdfn4zh2pw--