-acceptnonstdtxn option to skip "non-standard transaction" checks #559

pull luke-jr wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from luke-jr:accept_nonstdtxn changing 2 files +8 −1

luke-jr commented at 8:49 PM on October 4, 2011: member

Adds a -acceptnonstdtxn option to allow miners to easily accept "non-standard" transactions

We probably want to amend this with a block for OP_NOP*?
-acceptnonstdtxn option to skip "non-standard transaction" checks e8870911d2
gavinandresen commented at 2:27 PM on October 5, 2011: contributor

NACK -- I'll soften my position on non-standard transactions when there is a good fast-initial-download solution implemented and the transaction fee code is reworked.
TheBlueMatt commented at 3:10 PM on October 5, 2011: member

Non-standard transactions were disabled for a reason, and nothing has reasonably changed since then...why enable them or make it easy to do so?
jgarzik commented at 4:53 PM on December 19, 2011: contributor

NAK'd, closing. People who really need this can modify the source.
jgarzik closed this on Dec 19, 2011

in src/init.cpp:None in e8870911d2

 198 | @@ -199,6 +199,7 @@ bool AppInit2(int argc, char* argv[])
 199 |              "  -rpcport=<port>  \t\t  " + _("Listen for JSON-RPC connections on <port> (default: 8332)\n") +
 200 |              "  -rpcallowip=<ip> \t\t  " + _("Allow JSON-RPC connections from specified IP address\n") +
 201 |              "  -rpcconnect=<ip> \t  "   + _("Send commands to node running on <ip> (default: 127.0.0.1)\n") +
 202 | +            "  -acceptnonstdtxn \t  "   + _("Accept \"non-standard\" transactions for relay and blocks\n") +

rebroad commented at 10:53 PM on June 5, 2012:

it seems transaction is usually "tx" rather than "txn", isn't it?

luke-jr commented at 12:14 AM on October 22, 2015: member

Considering that merging this would have avoided the recent sigop-flooding problem, can I get this reopened and reconsidered? (note it must be reopened before I can rebase/push the latest branch and get it updated)
dcousens commented at 12:36 AM on October 22, 2015: contributor

@luke-jr how would it have avoided that?
luke-jr commented at 12:46 AM on October 22, 2015: member

The top commit since early 2014 limits sigops to a reasonable rate per bytes. This not only causes the fee logic to reflect the cost as expected, but also requires any attempt to spam sigops to also spam data meeting the block size before the block sigop limit.
dcousens commented at 12:48 AM on October 22, 2015: contributor

Fair enough, but, that isn't part of this PR?
luke-jr commented at 12:51 AM on October 22, 2015: member

It is as soon as it gets reopened. (GitHub ignores updates when the PR is closed.)
eragmus commented at 6:17 AM on December 3, 2015: none

Any update on this, @luke-jr? Identical attack resurfaced 3 days ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ur5ma/stuck_transactions/
luke-jr commented at 7:29 AM on December 3, 2015: member

That part was split into #7081
eragmus commented at 5:33 PM on December 4, 2015: none

Okay, thanks!
luke-jr referenced this in commit 7712fe794e on Jun 27, 2016
luke-jr referenced this in commit 7aa54ef00c on Jun 27, 2016
nomnombtc referenced this in commit 4d7f27aede on May 14, 2017
KolbyML referenced this in commit bc86927231 on Sep 4, 2020
rajarshimaitra referenced this in commit b6d8ddda43 on Aug 5, 2021
DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors

Labels

Linked (view graph)

#16157 Line coverage non-determinism in unit test(s) calling SerializeFileDB