True. Explicitness tends to limit outrage memeing though.

"core is changing its tx conventions" vs "core is changing its tx standards"

idk maybe the results are similar.

That’s fair. Instead of referring to transactions that fail Bitcoin Core’s mempool policy as non-standard, we should really be talking about "transactions that are [not] accepted by Bitcoin Core’s mempool policy defaults". It’s a bit of a mouthful, though.

Murch

Calling it a standardness rule seems... uncomfortable. It seems too high, in that a standard is something generally reached by consensus. I think it should be referred to as a convention, which denotes both that it is commonly adhered to, but deviation is not a significant issue.

Would there be any point in changing the naming from "standardness rules" to "conventions"? "Standardness rules" seems easier to conflate with "consensus rules" which is the most common source of confusion I've seen.

bitcoin

Quick questions about OP_RETURN? Quick answers here.

tidwell

re: https://stacker.news/items/972026/r/k00b?commentId=972228

> Calling it a standardness rule seems... uncomfortable. It seems too high, in that a standard is something generally reached by consensus. I think it should be referred to as a convention, which denotes both that it is commonly adhered to, but deviation is not a significant issue.

Would there be any point in changing the naming from "standardness rules" to "conventions"? "Standardness rules" seems easier to conflate with "consensus rules" which is the most common source of confusion I've seen.

