New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

-acceptnonstdtxn option to skip "non-standard transaction" checks #559

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@luke-jr
Member

luke-jr commented Oct 4, 2011

Adds a -acceptnonstdtxn option to allow miners to easily accept "non-standard" transactions

We probably want to amend this with a block for OP_NOP*?

@gavinandresen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gavinandresen

gavinandresen Oct 5, 2011

Contributor

NACK -- I'll soften my position on non-standard transactions when there is a good fast-initial-download solution implemented and the transaction fee code is reworked.

Contributor

gavinandresen commented Oct 5, 2011

NACK -- I'll soften my position on non-standard transactions when there is a good fast-initial-download solution implemented and the transaction fee code is reworked.

@TheBlueMatt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TheBlueMatt

TheBlueMatt Oct 5, 2011

Contributor

Non-standard transactions were disabled for a reason, and nothing has reasonably changed since then...why enable them or make it easy to do so?

Contributor

TheBlueMatt commented Oct 5, 2011

Non-standard transactions were disabled for a reason, and nothing has reasonably changed since then...why enable them or make it easy to do so?

@jgarzik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jgarzik

jgarzik Dec 19, 2011

Contributor

NAK'd, closing. People who really need this can modify the source.

Contributor

jgarzik commented Dec 19, 2011

NAK'd, closing. People who really need this can modify the source.

@@ -199,6 +199,7 @@ bool AppInit2(int argc, char* argv[])
" -rpcport=<port> \t\t " + _("Listen for JSON-RPC connections on <port> (default: 8332)\n") +
" -rpcallowip=<ip> \t\t " + _("Allow JSON-RPC connections from specified IP address\n") +
" -rpcconnect=<ip> \t " + _("Send commands to node running on <ip> (default: 127.0.0.1)\n") +
" -acceptnonstdtxn \t " + _("Accept \"non-standard\" transactions for relay and blocks\n") +

This comment has been minimized.

@rebroad

rebroad Jun 5, 2012

Contributor

it seems transaction is usually "tx" rather than "txn", isn't it?

@rebroad

rebroad Jun 5, 2012

Contributor

it seems transaction is usually "tx" rather than "txn", isn't it?

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Oct 22, 2015

Member

Considering that merging this would have avoided the recent sigop-flooding problem, can I get this reopened and reconsidered? (note it must be reopened before I can rebase/push the latest branch and get it updated)

Member

luke-jr commented Oct 22, 2015

Considering that merging this would have avoided the recent sigop-flooding problem, can I get this reopened and reconsidered? (note it must be reopened before I can rebase/push the latest branch and get it updated)

@dcousens

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dcousens

dcousens Oct 22, 2015

Contributor

@luke-jr how would it have avoided that?

Contributor

dcousens commented Oct 22, 2015

@luke-jr how would it have avoided that?

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Oct 22, 2015

Member

The top commit since early 2014 limits sigops to a reasonable rate per bytes. This not only causes the fee logic to reflect the cost as expected, but also requires any attempt to spam sigops to also spam data meeting the block size before the block sigop limit.

Member

luke-jr commented Oct 22, 2015

The top commit since early 2014 limits sigops to a reasonable rate per bytes. This not only causes the fee logic to reflect the cost as expected, but also requires any attempt to spam sigops to also spam data meeting the block size before the block sigop limit.

@dcousens

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dcousens

dcousens Oct 22, 2015

Contributor

Fair enough, but, that isn't part of this PR?

Contributor

dcousens commented Oct 22, 2015

Fair enough, but, that isn't part of this PR?

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Oct 22, 2015

Member

It is as soon as it gets reopened. (GitHub ignores updates when the PR is closed.)

Member

luke-jr commented Oct 22, 2015

It is as soon as it gets reopened. (GitHub ignores updates when the PR is closed.)

@eragmus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eragmus

eragmus Dec 3, 2015

Any update on this, @luke-jr? Identical attack resurfaced 3 days ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ur5ma/stuck_transactions/

eragmus commented Dec 3, 2015

Any update on this, @luke-jr? Identical attack resurfaced 3 days ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ur5ma/stuck_transactions/

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Dec 3, 2015

Member

That part was split into #7081

Member

luke-jr commented Dec 3, 2015

That part was split into #7081

@eragmus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eragmus

eragmus Dec 4, 2015

Okay, thanks!

eragmus commented Dec 4, 2015

Okay, thanks!

luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 27, 2016

nomnombtc pushed a commit to nomnombtc/bitcoin that referenced this pull request May 14, 2017

Merge pull request #559 from ptschip/release_timer
Make sure to clear mapThinBlocksInFlight()
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment