š
Original date posted:2023-05-08
šļø Summary of this message: A proposal to change transaction "max fee" to output amounts could harm applications like OpenTimestamps, and CPFP is a better defense against non-money use cases.
š Original message:fair. i suppose you could support cpfp in any dust filtering. im not a
fan, but I think its the only legit way to defend the chain from non money
use cases
On Mon, May 8, 2023, 7:58 PM Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 07:59:40PM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > possible to change tx "max fee" to output amounts?
> >
> > seems like the only use case that would support such a tx is spam/dos
> type
> > stuff that satoshi warned about
> >
> > its not a fix for everything, but it seems could help a bit with certain
> > attacks
>
> With CPFP it often makes sense for a transaction to have a fee larger than
> the
> output amounts.
>
> This proposal would also screw over applications like my OpenTimestamps
> service.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230508/ef79bcc2/attachment.html>;
Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] /
npub1y2ā¦5taj0
2023-06-07 23:21:37
in reply to nevent1qā¦g939
Author Public Key
npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0Published at
2023-06-07 23:21:37Event JSON
{
"id": "fd1b4b7abe244aebaf27372f27f8f0ef8c5ab2c35524d380f3ac36e4d346aaab",
"pubkey": "22944ce1e29904e3826d25013a614e4665693ec514003efacc1b7586e8e5d0aa",
"created_at": 1686180097,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7c9ab3bfd4487fc248f0999992fbb086f7a0963704faae55dd9cb39170076265",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9529f1ec589b14043e50c309d32b5d6dcaea249b8b40ea7ac7335f6aac0d28a7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2023-05-08\nšļø Summary of this message: A proposal to change transaction \"max fee\" to output amounts could harm applications like OpenTimestamps, and CPFP is a better defense against non-money use cases.\nš Original message:fair. i suppose you could support cpfp in any dust filtering. im not a\nfan, but I think its the only legit way to defend the chain from non money\nuse cases\n\nOn Mon, May 8, 2023, 7:58 PM Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 07:59:40PM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e possible to change tx \"max fee\" to output amounts?\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e seems like the only use case that would support such a tx is spam/dos\n\u003e type\n\u003e \u003e stuff that satoshi warned about\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e its not a fix for everything, but it seems could help a bit with certain\n\u003e \u003e attacks\n\u003e\n\u003e With CPFP it often makes sense for a transaction to have a fee larger than\n\u003e the\n\u003e output amounts.\n\u003e\n\u003e This proposal would also screw over applications like my OpenTimestamps\n\u003e service.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230508/ef79bcc2/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "42c048f4b9887a717dd797444f21b150f401c73debbf1a718263939607726ab5aa656fd173f434eb6963034e46cee5f9966af9dd27978cdbbeaa8b11b930bf08"
}