Return-Path: Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03EEC0176 for ; Sat, 23 May 2020 15:25:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD42485188 for ; Sat, 23 May 2020 15:25:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cx1x-j8PPyAD for ; Sat, 23 May 2020 15:25:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr1-f43.google.com (mail-wr1-f43.google.com [209.85.221.43]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11D5184887 for ; Sat, 23 May 2020 15:25:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f43.google.com with SMTP id l17so13185973wrr.4 for ; Sat, 23 May 2020 08:25:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=tngRPjNjsnfP/lGAGfeCxlLjGQy+SVYsIRN8ypH1Pd8=; b=qBqdkZzc34Qvu56igmoNpCN/vJXG4qCU+pN46qoJ7el2cKx2YXENgAZLDqhu6gXHiV L0Obn+c5uSnv9x2NnIQB4zpgaXKx+H2fRlmYd8/vP0BqB7JrZqp4jDpAz5RO8oUSPfQ2 fvWJ4wKk/Cs7CU/hDb0PLmQEXyiNiuFo3HeSq54u98lSpaFHCtRuH0hd8bzrfitn4EeC /vSmFj9qTRtgRQBeqA9Tc/JxWIEY+flJFqmXyVuwRw4JyL+JqK4qUnxRXWbLHX7lrCwQ B3FA09NmI4zO9xmB0DgsUPWRBzNt0PhRd25SgUn7+5MiZgDQ+42DfPNvQs0tntmglyGv mxRw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=tngRPjNjsnfP/lGAGfeCxlLjGQy+SVYsIRN8ypH1Pd8=; b=jrxpXY3m3zkoyG2EYMGpT5PfmbgyUxMmsf2KFSmJx/tgAfSTP8tMbCYh9+fHDaV5GW L3kim4ElvC9A26M2l0PFXxugGJLu7nAEo5yi2hGjeGxHC68dKCohvx7KBk990gO/BTH1 DiwnK6cc0dBNT6c1lXF6j1vu2uAxWEhRWcUgfMzwTJqHvXF/9SOjc5KIHPzlZfRJTece v/sBgJwjtPHH00IwOcbRPdRnouFSD5RcKU/wu4MEctNHFDskrYanoco9lxIpsj6mBryt PXEcpWuMnAPOAazkMrOWanWPNpsq0ptfMErIEaEufLjj/1zom9OXayAEu3XM7FpygLhc o2/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533fNoSZXFc+Zo4dj3jwadeleYGJF0qo5YEV0+Y12+PjXCsxBWQ8 dmgbuf8aAF5EWX/6VdFqhtq8o5BqCQ4ywc+Bha4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwWaAYkbH6ig+9sbWsy/hOQ4ktGIXiB4K2wpOUyCbekI9w1ED2mR+4rr5VOIhS2UFNDx4SfeTJXyj8qPRQphqs= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4747:: with SMTP id o7mr7539704wrs.11.1590247518407; Sat, 23 May 2020 08:25:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Greg Sanders Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 11:25:06 -0400 Message-ID: To: Thomas Voegtlin , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000070904105a6525a13" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE and OP_RETURN 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: Sat, 23 May 2020 15:25:21 -0000 --00000000000070904105a6525a13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" So I think the question to ask would be "why can't we just make sure it's not 64?" On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:24 AM Greg Sanders wrote: > AFAIU the number was picked to protect against CVE-2017-12842 covertly. > See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16885 > which updated the > text to explicitly mention this fact. > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:20 AM Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Hello list, >> >> I have been trying to CPFP a transaction using OP_RETURN, because the >> remaining output value would have been lower than the dust threshold. >> >> The scriptPubkey of the output was OP_RETURN + OP_0, and there was a >> single p2wsh input. >> >> The result is a 60 bytes transaction (without witness), that gets >> rejected because it is lower than MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE, which >> is equal to 82 bytes. >> >> Why is that value so high? Would it make sense to lower it to 60? >> >> >> Thomas >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > --00000000000070904105a6525a13 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So I think the question to ask would be "why can'= t we just make sure it's not 64?"

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:24 AM = Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.c= om> wrote:
AFAIU the number was picked to protect against=C2=A0CVE-= 2017-12842 covertly. See:=C2=A0https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pu= ll/16885=C2=A0which updated the text to explicitly mention this fact.
On= Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:20 AM Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hello list,

I have been trying to CPFP a transaction using OP_RETURN, because the
remaining output value would have been lower than the dust threshold.

The scriptPubkey of the output was OP_RETURN + OP_0, and there was a
single p2wsh input.

The result is a 60 bytes transaction (without witness), that gets
rejected because it is lower than MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE, which is equal to 82 bytes.

Why is that value so high? Would it make sense to lower it to 60?


Thomas
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--00000000000070904105a6525a13--