1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
|
Return-Path: <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03EEC0176
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 23 May 2020 15:25:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr1-f43.google.com with SMTP id l17so13185973wrr.4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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: <aa916637-befa-795a-caa1-e5ad50ce63c8@electrum.org>
<CAB3F3DuGi_Uc0cf5eGvE9ej2d1RS8CVkf7xGBjR4uRf8jAmQhA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB3F3DuGi_Uc0cf5eGvE9ej2d1RS8CVkf7xGBjR4uRf8jAmQhA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 11:25:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB3F3DtCgdWOPpTdr-cMcnRO1RE2isEAavGZSOTvtSi-0_x64w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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 <gsanders87@gmail.com> wrote:
> AFAIU the number was picked to protect against CVE-2017-12842 covertly.
> See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16885
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16885/files> 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
<div dir=3D"ltr">So I think the question to ask would be "why can'=
t we just make sure it's not 64?"</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:24 AM =
Greg Sanders <<a href=3D"mailto:gsanders87@gmail.com">gsanders87@gmail.c=
om</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex=
"><div dir=3D"ltr">AFAIU the number was picked to protect against=C2=A0CVE-=
2017-12842 covertly. See:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi=
n/pull/16885/files" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pu=
ll/16885</a>=C2=A0which updated the text to explicitly mention this fact.</=
div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On=
Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:20 AM Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev <<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(2=
04,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello list,<br>
<br>
I have been trying to CPFP a transaction using OP_RETURN, because the<br>
remaining output value would have been lower than the dust threshold.<br>
<br>
The scriptPubkey of the output was OP_RETURN + OP_0, and there was a<br>
single p2wsh input.<br>
<br>
The result is a 60 bytes transaction (without witness), that gets<br>
rejected because it is lower than MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE, which<br=
>
is equal to 82 bytes.<br>
<br>
Why is that value so high? Would it make sense to lower it to 60?<br>
<br>
<br>
Thomas<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
--00000000000070904105a6525a13--
|
