As there has been some feedback to the same effect, I've opened a competing
PR for separate evaluation here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26398
Please give feedback if anyone has any.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 8:13 PM Peter Todd wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 08:07:54PM -0400, Greg S
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 08:07:54PM -0400, Greg Sanders wrote:
> 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
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. Wi
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
S HRMH
>
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> --
> *From:* bitcoin-dev on
> behalf of Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2022 11:50:07 PM
> *To:
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, b
