Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DBAC002D for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 19:09:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992C860D7B for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 19:09:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 992C860D7B Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=dfSZob+Q X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vHK1e4u3kQsG for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 19:09:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 7D3DF60D73 Received: from mail-ej1-x62f.google.com (mail-ej1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D3DF60D73 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 19:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id 13so24136094ejn.3 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 12:09:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yN5PepjKDtSPVFV7gwePSpZGxcBmlDptjoB7XEsH6Ls=; b=dfSZob+Qi/PP+xwUQ9BTvLF0VKIFd/kaYxzS4DsJwxqiwXzapcEV8vQNqjn+n7ZslZ hCx1p8KcskBsKMOe0okDhpFJtfI/rU53ZYXkO3n/YrnzjxI4iJy8xzqMQRBZfG1SYBkK PRtE7Bln7NY2k+QL6r+nNl6ogBtiDishThmGmgxqqeHgDvVjetKUs4XSTkgSDl1WXUky Pa0lCF/hPnmJ6pwfddOEdNWjNm47TH2rCI8HiKxONWWEd0+GevpjqEUsElKTj8CHtl4M ctOYnQMmEOXWaC6DbwGGn5PAag2QCgHcfAHMl65SYK1Aj2P1R8QmSj9WysNZ/vBgX3ii i42g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=yN5PepjKDtSPVFV7gwePSpZGxcBmlDptjoB7XEsH6Ls=; b=3No+af5FnAfGYuNRfkbydjqq8V0JY/30A7hTOuDMOkBQs5zlSImUE8bI9FtAKUKOQt FQQFL8onaLCyqHVNCG30G+baUT+uF/Y/yC27tLdvO0nMyEwJyxnODDKnu49tq8M57E0F jTdusY1L2o2CZa9weezs/4Z8rAEVQ/G+bhZYUylUCzWuXsMj2WiLzotHjr7wx62+7zj7 dqGWGqIwx3KKdMxncRq3JP5XfJ+2ATMFyMjrhmvwyfSvNEHb+HuKcfn9qtxnsvmxj2i9 xeUWEkCjCJdqStQAHdSRgTw+WT7Yu5eEaGBHiPxxXdXAsGuGiC80nxlJBkK1qx8qXlOI 8ukg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0SJyyfbJ6+N+dh8tAqz+FVlSz4wK03mA9otxfZwEGm4ehZAQt1 hVw5CttqMLxukwBd6kONtIG5ZVanFy31rrL4ypueA3zn1yI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4WxZei1haCHcsP6iLFFWpmDW9vpBYXpLk8VypUSeqIL9Y/+pR5PLShPWXvsXjr5vPNRKKDQrC5yhTQ9WEORS4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1b09:b0:7ac:db30:2cf0 with SMTP id mp9-20020a1709071b0900b007acdb302cf0mr7668646ejc.679.1666811389453; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 12:09:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Greg Sanders Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:09:38 -0400 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c6aa7a05ebf4c4a0" 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: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 19:09:52 -0000 --000000000000c6aa7a05ebf4c4a0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" As there has been some feedback to the same effect, I've opened a competing PR for separate evaluation here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26398 Please give feedback if anyone has any. On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 8:13 PM Peter Todd wrote: > 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 > the > > proposal to die in case people found it odd that 61, 62, 63, but not 64 > > bytes ended up being broadcast able. > > > > 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 > to do > that and it's ok if we just tell people that. Only fairly-technical > use-cases > are affected anyway. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > --000000000000c6aa7a05ebf4c4a0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As there has been some feedback to the same effect, I'= ve opened a competing PR for separate evaluation here:=C2=A0https://github.com/bitcoin/bitco= in/pull/26398

Please give feedback if anyone has any= .

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 8:13 PM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
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 di= dn't want the
> proposal to die in case people found it odd that 61, 62, 63, but not 6= 4
> bytes ended up being broadcast able.
>
> Perhaps this is not an issue, especially since this isn't a consen= sus
> 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 reas= on to do
that and it's ok if we just tell people that. Only fairly-technical use= -cases
are affected anyway.

--
http= s://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--000000000000c6aa7a05ebf4c4a0--