4 ms·

Has there ever been a case where this occurred (with a market clearing mining fee is included)? You only need one miner to include the transaction.

by xur17 6y ago

jnwatson 6y ago
Yes. Treasury has tried to tighten the screws somewhat. [1] *. https://www.clearytradewatch.com/2018/12/ofac-lists-digital-currency-addresses-first-time-releases-new-guidance/ https://www.clearytradewatch.com/2018/12/ofac-lists-digital-... You are correct that you only need one miner, but that miner has to win a block.
kolinko 6y ago
There’s a ton, actually. Bitcoin has a system of “standard” transactions, that is the ones that are accepted by miners, vs. “valid” transactions that are accepted by nodes. Any nonstandard transaction will be rejected by 90 if not 100%, miners, but if you get lucky to get someone to mine it, it will work fine with the protocol. The nonstandard txs are any that are something more than a transfer, multisig (i.e. the ones that have some sort of smart contract capability). This is not theoretical - literally killed my project of decentralised oracles (Orisi) back in 2014. Our beta transactions were accepted only by 10% of miners, so you had to wait for hours to get your tx through. Perhaps it changed - I think in 2018 not even one mining pool accepted that, but perhaps by now they fixed it, although I doubt that. May seem like a small thing, but I met other projects that bumped into it. They had the tech, just didn’t manage to convinve miners to accept their transactions.
- qertoip 6y ago
  You are correct about "standard valid" vs "non-standard valid" distinction in Bitcoin. You are incorrect about what constitutes a standard. The "smart contracts" by their own are standard - the whole Lightning Network is based on smart contracts - as well as many other protocols running live for years. It sounds more like your specific transactions were non-standard due to excessive size, usage of non-standard opcodes, or other technical quirks.
  - kolinko 6y ago
    Nope, before Bitcoin core 0.9.2 any script besides 3-4 default templates was considered non-standard. Regular opcodes, any size. We had a basic script that verified 3 out of 4 multisig, and that was non-standard, because the only standard multisig was 2 out of 3. But this was 2014, so it may have been before your time.

Has there ever been a case where this occurred (with a market clearing mining fee is included)? You only need one miner to include the transaction.

by xur17 6y ago

Has there ever been a case where this occurred (with a market clearing mining fee is included)? You only need one miner to include the transaction.

jnwatson 6y ago

Yes. Treasury has tried to tighten the screws somewhat. [1] *. https://www.clearytradewatch.com/2018/12/ofac-lists-digital-currency-addresses-first-time-releases-new-guidance/ https://www.clearytradewatch.com/2018/12/ofac-lists-digital-... You are correct that you only need one miner, but that miner has to win a block.

kolinko 6y ago

There’s a ton, actually. Bitcoin has a system of “standard” transactions, that is the ones that are accepted by miners, vs. “valid” transactions that are accepted by nodes. Any nonstandard transaction will be rejected by 90 if not 100%, miners, but if you get lucky to get someone to mine it, it will work fine with the protocol. The nonstandard txs are any that are something more than a transfer, multisig (i.e. the ones that have some sort of smart contract capability). This is not theoretical - literally killed my project of decentralised oracles (Orisi) back in 2014. Our beta transactions were accepted only by 10% of miners, so you had to wait for hours to get your tx through. Perhaps it changed - I think in 2018 not even one mining pool accepted that, but perhaps by now they fixed it, although I doubt that. May seem like a small thing, but I met other projects that bumped into it. They had the tech, just didn’t manage to convinve miners to accept their transactions.

qertoip 6y ago
You are correct about "standard valid" vs "non-standard valid" distinction in Bitcoin. You are incorrect about what constitutes a standard. The "smart contracts" by their own are standard - the whole Lightning Network is based on smart contracts - as well as many other protocols running live for years. It sounds more like your specific transactions were non-standard due to excessive size, usage of non-standard opcodes, or other technical quirks.
- kolinko 6y ago
  Nope, before Bitcoin core 0.9.2 any script besides 3-4 default templates was considered non-standard. Regular opcodes, any size. We had a basic script that verified 3 out of 4 multisig, and that was non-standard, because the only standard multisig was 2 out of 3. But this was 2014, so it may have been before your time.