MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2B4CGwGp1BsPScyC_+DndLDMnHTzWhmhfUxQnE3bVuSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+8xBpc5iV=prakWKkNFa0O+tgyhoHxJ9Xwz6ubhPRUBf_95KA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1EKaHbpdC6X=9mvyJHC_cvW7u5p9nqM7EwkEypAg4Xmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+8xBpdBDDxD46f9ugn-ueZGwMU6fnF4BheUGiiz1otOTdffEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2B4CGwGp1BsPScyC_+DndLDMnHTzWhmhfUxQnE3bVuSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:01:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpeVW9pqyP+=b7gyeB4od1S97+rOwi=VV64v53E_GHO=FQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] On-going data spam
Precedence: list

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>> However, there should be some metrics and heuristics that take care of
>> this problem.  Notably the dev consensus (sans you, Mike :)) seems to
>> be that uneconomical outputs should be made non-standard.

> I think that patch is ok as it doesn't really have any fixed concept of what
> is uneconomical. But I haven't thought about it much. As Gavin says, there's
> an obvious backwards compatibility problem there. It should probably wait
> until the payment protocol work is done, so the major user of
> micropayments-as-messages  can migrate off them.

"wait" is only an option if there is an alternate solution already
coded and ready for 0.8.2.
-- 
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com