pull down to refresh

110 sats \ 7 replies \ @tidwell OP 21h \ on: Quick questions about OP_RETURN? Quick answers here. bitcoin
How would someone get around the standardness policy currently for OP_RETURN size?
write
preview
110 sats \ 6 replies \ @Murch 21h
Some Bitcoin node implementations such as Libre Relay have less strict mempool policies and relay transactions that would be considered non-standard by Bitcoin Core. Some mining pools use similar mempool policies and additionally accept direct submissions out-of-band.
As transactions with multiple OP_RETURN outputs or larger OP_RETURN outputs are permitted by the consensus rules, blocks that include these non-standard transactions are accepted by all nodes.
reply
107 sats \ 5 replies \ @petertodd 19h
Also important to mention: Libre Relay automatically peers with other Libre Relay nodes. So even with only a small minority of Libre Relay nodes, transactions still propagate reliably.
reply
42 sats \ 4 replies \ @028559d218 19h
So in other words... attempts to 'filter' transactions successfully by running a client with 'stricter' mempool policy than core... is pretty much hopeless? ????
reply
31 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 18h
It takes only about 10% of nodes to somewhat reliably propagate a transaction. Even fewer are enough if they preferentially peer like Libre Relay does (TIL!). So, yes, it’s not effective.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 15h
You learned that today? Sheesh.
My first full-rbf fork of Bitcoin Core with preferential peering was released in 2014.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @j7hB75 14h
lol so humble
reply on another page
41 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd 19h
Censorship, stifling information, is always more difficult than spreading it.
reply