📅 Original date posted:2012-02-07
📝 Original message:On Monday, February 06, 2012 10:54:25 AM Luke-Jr wrote:
> > 769 : Make transactions with extra data in scriptSig non-standard
>
> If this affects relaying, it will significantly harm the ability to replace
> the current spammy "green address" scheme with a sensible extra signature
> system. On the miner end, it could significantly harm adoption of such a
> system.
FWIW, at least MtGox was OK with the plan to move to non-blockchain-spam
0-confirmation via an extra signature. Why do you ignore this possibility, and
merge stuff that will break it? Do you have an alternative solution to the
problem of green addresses spamming the blockchain? As I noted in the pull
request, stripping extra data has no negative impact on normal transactions,
and clients creating these can be written to expect the txnid to change (or
simply not care what the txnid is).
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 03:06:16
in reply to nevent1q…dfyc
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 03:06:16Event JSON
{
"id": "e43b73ec0a3d64f3b3a78fe266c14e5ff1534e9c9f2c6ba3602923298bb4f195",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686107176,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"99ba5f682284a5ffda4797c6751f0052e40a1d1d129ef02f47823bcd9d8d369f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bc90adb4148eedd0d2b84f15ee74062f5492aadef200db688e56fd2ace691c4a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-02-07\n📝 Original message:On Monday, February 06, 2012 10:54:25 AM Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e \u003e 769 : Make transactions with extra data in scriptSig non-standard\n\u003e \n\u003e If this affects relaying, it will significantly harm the ability to replace\n\u003e the current spammy \"green address\" scheme with a sensible extra signature\n\u003e system. On the miner end, it could significantly harm adoption of such a\n\u003e system.\n\nFWIW, at least MtGox was OK with the plan to move to non-blockchain-spam\n0-confirmation via an extra signature. Why do you ignore this possibility, and \nmerge stuff that will break it? Do you have an alternative solution to the \nproblem of green addresses spamming the blockchain? As I noted in the pull \nrequest, stripping extra data has no negative impact on normal transactions, \nand clients creating these can be written to expect the txnid to change (or \nsimply not care what the txnid is).",
"sig": "a42772a909d2cd3d168786d0364112c7629d44ea1e23c7b49f5fe8e05c88ee2a9b2eaf70ef7401755e3eed65dd7e996f29368e1b35bda4e7721844a68e18c02f"
}