From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140AAC002D for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A2160D54 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:08:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org D6A2160D54 Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=i/xB6+Dz X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iSMJv-eeDw4L for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:08:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 500D360C02 Received: from mail-ej1-x62d.google.com (mail-ej1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62d]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 500D360C02 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:08:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id sc25so3270418ejc.12 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:08:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FRHrtMaOJSm5F0CXoARoatepEYjf6HKM4FbMY1GXj7A=; b=i/xB6+DzNnOCqPnPvXnD+90O6FW/Tp4XD5/EX9C+v4JJQ1WSK45GO1kHoTEKYF6imP N2hgNd6CI3Es//WO+GDlcCoDJfCLHvEoICLOEQUh6YVKiIc5UQiZYYTcmebKd9IUm1OR Q9bQSOIG0qxb4OKG/qMGqE/8Otli8nrbHtMugu9jOSxZ81KlqV3e/qEXRTJvAywtrRJO RNunY90BieK8DhC6IIaqgvIL739JjSkI/978gZ4tUuvs6LMcAGzJ+CF56rXab/cAxTEs T6t2lt7G/+fwdqpPPxFgr9vq9Xb6soVY9tycSiqUHkHZjqF316DkPGcn0thrwCvkyy72 BzeQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=FRHrtMaOJSm5F0CXoARoatepEYjf6HKM4FbMY1GXj7A=; b=ZO2FHzLj2cRPK+mYH63RramxynVKI+b06yY4URWbEj6U5TozBJDDXDpCqHURcSwBv7 V3LVhSeyaikF6VFXiG4aFGehe6qTrcorwqXbfAg3HmG26fakFuIVowV5/KZh+4AH8HEd wYD0CvjjHjVBfyVdUI5xpq3MZND1tDlVU63SrhWfAkGQNt+/dTig9LOr4fTPVXusRjTz +pAc3/xSBP2uP5ymwfQAq14UuuCnkz3F1B9DRQOiFPJY0gul3J1RU8TumKCh9o8u3DgN tNZYuBn0JJrxkf01bQbRJlcDkE0xqjvZE3NfL2FJYL+AB7ZUkf3Y6XVRgW/KMd3bIihz iMCg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1kpGRucvOEaWjcTFQSMCD4B4jB2iqg37kWdlveLkbrwnoiPK2n YMwpD4Z9SnqVCSpDVNeypTxrd8mSvGfIwVq7J84t2wIF X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4dizuPSYbTP+bPoSJhI0EDJYnAZS7a+SwqJBal51/Ol1pe8vuRWKmCfcXFRik+/0l/oUTledzHeF5n/SsYt90= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:2702:b0:78e:e94:2ac4 with SMTP id w2-20020a170907270200b0078e0e942ac4mr13017975ejk.679.1666310884372; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:08:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Greg Sanders Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:07:54 -0400 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000059374005eb803ccc" Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Relaxing minimum non-witness transaction size policy restriction X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:08:08 -0000 --00000000000059374005eb803ccc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I don't doubt the use case(it's why I opened the issue!). I didn't want the proposal to die in case people found it odd that 61, 62, 63, but not 64 bytes ended up being broadcast able. Perhaps this is not an issue, especially since this isn't a consensus change like the Great Consensus Cleanup. Willing to change my proposal and PR if people have no strong objections. Greg On Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 7:21 PM Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 08:50:07AM -0400, Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Hello fellow Bitcoiners, > > > > After looking at some fairly exotic possible transaction types, I ran > into > > the current policy limit requiring transactions to be 85 non-witness > > serialized bytes. This was introduced as a covert fix to policy fix > > for CVE-2017-12842. Later the real motivation was revealed, but the > > "reasonable" constant chosen was not. > > > > I'd like to propose relaxing this to effectively the value BlueMatt > > proposed in the Great Consensus Cleanup: 65 non-witness bytes. This would > > allow a single input, single output transaction with 4 bytes of OP_RETURN > > padding, rather than padding out 21 bytes to get to p2wpkh size. > > > > The alternative would be to also allow anything below 64 non-witness > bytes, > > but this seems fraught with footguns for a few bytes gain. > > What footguns exactly? Spending a single input to OP_RETURN with no > payload is > a valid use to get rid of dust in the UTXO set. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > --00000000000059374005eb803ccc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't doubt the use case(it's why I opened the = issue!). I didn't want the proposal to die in case people found it odd = that 61, 62, 63, but not 64 bytes ended up being broadcast able.=C2=A0

Perhaps this is not an issue, espe= cially since this isn't a consensus change like the Great Consensus Cle= anup. Willing to change my proposal and PR if people have no strong objecti= ons.=C2=A0

Greg

On = Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 7:21 PM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 08:50:07AM -0400, Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev = wrote:
> Hello fellow Bitcoiners,
>
> After looking at some fairly exotic possible transaction types, I ran = into
> the current policy limit requiring transactions to be 85 non-witness > serialized bytes. This was introduced as a covert fix to policy fix > for CVE-2017-12842. Later the real motivation was revealed, but the > "reasonable" constant chosen was not.
>
> I'd like to propose relaxing this to effectively the value BlueMat= t
> proposed in the Great Consensus Cleanup: 65 non-witness bytes. This wo= uld
> allow a single input, single output transaction with 4 bytes of OP_RET= URN
> padding, rather than padding out 21 bytes to get to p2wpkh size.
>
> The alternative would be to also allow anything below 64 non-witness b= ytes,
> but this seems fraught with footguns for a few bytes gain.

What footguns exactly? Spending a single input to OP_RETURN with no payload= is
a valid use to get rid of dust in the UTXO set.

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--00000000000059374005eb803ccc--