📅 Original date posted:2011-11-09
🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on the validity of "half" transactions and the need for constraints to prevent spamming, with concerns about introducing non-standard protocols.
📝 Original message:Hi Gavin / Alan,
Agree that we would also need to consider these "half" transaction valid. At least for the time being up to the lock_time, and one could have an extra constrain - that the lock_time should be within e.g. 30minutes that would avoid the will-never-be-completed cases.
My main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that they might never be standard (I think a great number of clients will emerge - and this would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the p2p network it will be a seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, even across different clients. But I share your concern on the
I can, however, also understand your worries, and some other constraints should be introduced to ensure that not even short time spamming is possible...
/M
On 09/11/2011, at 20:13, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> 1. from client1 I issue a transaction containing one of the signatures, with a locktime e.g. 10 minutes from now and a sequence of 0. This transaction is now posted to the p2p network.
>
> As Alan said, that won't work-- it will not be relayed across the
> network because it isn't a valid transaction until it has enough
> signatures.
>
>> Alternatively, the transactions would need to be sent between clients using another protocol...
>
> Formats and protocols for gathering signatures are in the TODO
> category-- Alan's BIP 10 is the next piece of the puzzle, maybe a
> standardized http/https RESTful API, or HTTP/JSON, or protocol buffers
> and raw sockets, or... something... solution (or solutions) built on
> top of that makes sense.
>
> I don't think partially-signed transactions belong on the main Bitcoin
> P2P network, mostly because I don't see any way of preventing somebody
> from endlessly spamming bogus, will-never-be-completed partial
> transactions just to be annoying.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
Michael Grønager [ARCHIVE] /
npub15f…xlq6h
2023-06-07 02:38:41
in reply to nevent1q…rffv
Author Public Key
npub15fmnxm546tg2sv0l7elusrvqsgezdzdg3m0flpml5fr2qf3f5slskxlq6hPublished at
2023-06-07 02:38:41Event JSON
{
"id": "3a65e38ee6ee65f68fe44383d8d46727df1ce0686e70768a47bbf53b965a0f90",
"pubkey": "a277336e95d2d0a831fff67fc80d8082322689a88ede9f877fa246a02629a43f",
"created_at": 1686105521,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a7fd8b1daaa858237747bd2300e513940cf62340eedfc2d0e5c06a3e24e868d2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"91a4f85f733f837a920794250ea3cbbc1588509f89e08bb44fe19ec4f6c055e1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7b17a27b7a85e67ba7923c452fbb08ed536244f667a20168dfc3172a83c992df"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-11-09\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on the validity of \"half\" transactions and the need for constraints to prevent spamming, with concerns about introducing non-standard protocols.\n📝 Original message:Hi Gavin / Alan,\n\nAgree that we would also need to consider these \"half\" transaction valid. At least for the time being up to the lock_time, and one could have an extra constrain - that the lock_time should be within e.g. 30minutes that would avoid the will-never-be-completed cases.\n\nMy main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that they might never be standard (I think a great number of clients will emerge - and this would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the p2p network it will be a seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, even across different clients. But I share your concern on the \n\nI can, however, also understand your worries, and some other constraints should be introduced to ensure that not even short time spamming is possible... \n\n/M\n\nOn 09/11/2011, at 20:13, Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\n\u003e\u003e 1. from client1 I issue a transaction containing one of the signatures, with a locktime e.g. 10 minutes from now and a sequence of 0. This transaction is now posted to the p2p network.\n\u003e \n\u003e As Alan said, that won't work-- it will not be relayed across the\n\u003e network because it isn't a valid transaction until it has enough\n\u003e signatures.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Alternatively, the transactions would need to be sent between clients using another protocol...\n\u003e \n\u003e Formats and protocols for gathering signatures are in the TODO\n\u003e category-- Alan's BIP 10 is the next piece of the puzzle, maybe a\n\u003e standardized http/https RESTful API, or HTTP/JSON, or protocol buffers\n\u003e and raw sockets, or... something... solution (or solutions) built on\n\u003e top of that makes sense.\n\u003e \n\u003e I don't think partially-signed transactions belong on the main Bitcoin\n\u003e P2P network, mostly because I don't see any way of preventing somebody\n\u003e from endlessly spamming bogus, will-never-be-completed partial\n\u003e transactions just to be annoying.\n\u003e \n\u003e -- \n\u003e --\n\u003e Gavin Andresen",
"sig": "ad051b86ed21de6dd22d3edb480187cfcc0c515f68309afc7f4f391a4f5baf8a047a1c9cd5a00e0645d4f380390481206b5c4b08512a5f22b744cdc896a0b5eb"
}