Add configuration option that will allow for setting the upper bound on transaction size for relaying #27055

1. 
   pantadeusz commented at 11:55 am on February 7, 2023: none

   The recent events, where people store big data on the blockchain in the witness (like images) showed that the dispute about this topic was not settled during OP_RETURN discussion. Some people like the idea that every payed transaction is not a spam, some don’t.

   I suggest that users could set the transaction size limit in the configuration file that will make node drop transactions from the memory pool that are larger. This way node operators would decide what kind of transactions gets relayed via their node.

   Alternatively this limit could be on the consensus layer, but I don’t think it is a good idea.

   If I would get some help, I can try to implement this feature (no guarantee of success, because i don’t know the Bitcoin Core codebase yet, however I have some experience in programming).

2. pantadeusz added the label Feature on Feb 7, 2023
3. maflcko removed the label Feature on Feb 7, 2023
4. maflcko added the label TX fees and policy on Feb 7, 2023
5. maflcko added the label Feature on Feb 7, 2023
6. 
   petertodd commented at 7:35 pm on February 7, 2023: contributor

   NACK

   Coinjoins are very large transactions that ~no-one believes are illegitimate. The existing standardness size limit already unnecessarily limits of the size of them (as Wasabi has pointed out); any further limitation would be undesirable.

   Also, per-node limits are pretty much pointless when the goal is censorship. It only takes a small % of nodes to get transactions to miners reliably (as shown by the success of full-RBF).

7. 
   pantadeusz commented at 10:28 pm on February 7, 2023: none

   Thank you for clarification and a good argument against. Should I be the one to close issue?
8. 
   petertodd commented at 10:32 pm on February 7, 2023: contributor

   Go ahead and close it, thanks!

   On February 7, 2023 11:28:33 PM GMT+01:00, “Tadeusz Puźniakowski” @.***> wrote:

   Thank you for clarification and a good argument against. Should I be the one to close issue?

   – Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27055#issuecomment-1421557469 You are receiving this because you commented.

   Message ID: @.***>

9. pantadeusz closed this on Feb 7, 2023

   ---

10. bitcoin locked this on Feb 7, 2024

Contributors
pantadeusz petertodd

Labels
Feature TX fees and policy