From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:04:36 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.2-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <CABsx9T0-eMkfJiOL_2VN5TUuvs_fYANa3XXoM5OX4AMP1W2iSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201202061054.26448.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <201202061054.26448.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201202071004.37615.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Version 0.6 release candidate 1 plan
Precedence: list

On Monday, February 06, 2012 10:54:25 AM Luke-Jr wrote:
> > 769 : Make transactions with extra data in scriptSig non-standard
> 
> If this affects relaying, it will significantly harm the ability to replace
> the current spammy "green address" scheme with a sensible extra signature
> system. On the miner end, it could significantly harm adoption of such a
> system.

FWIW, at least MtGox was OK with the plan to move to non-blockchain-spam
0-confirmation via an extra signature. Why do you ignore this possibility, and 
merge stuff that will break it? Do you have an alternative solution to the 
problem of green addresses spamming the blockchain? As I noted in the pull 
request, stripping extra data has no negative impact on normal transactions, 
and clients creating these can be written to expect the txnid to change (or 
simply not care what the txnid is).