Skip to content
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 from

Conversation

@luke-jr
Copy link
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
Copy link
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
Copy link
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
Copy link
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.

Copy link
@rebroad

rebroad Jun 5, 2012

Contributor

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

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member Author

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
Copy link
Contributor

dcousens commented Oct 22, 2015

@luke-jr how would it have avoided that?

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member Author

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
Copy link
Contributor

dcousens commented Oct 22, 2015

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

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member Author

luke-jr commented Oct 22, 2015

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

@eragmus
Copy link

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
Copy link
Member Author

luke-jr commented Dec 3, 2015

That part was split into #7081

@eragmus
Copy link

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
Make sure to clear mapThinBlocksInFlight()
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.