1 2012-08-03 00:08:05 <jgarzik> luke-jr: if gmaxwell or sipa feels they were closed in error, and want to reopen, I certainly respect their decision as well. My standard policy is not to engage in edit wars (or commit wars or close/reopen wars), and I respect their decisions.
2 2012-08-03 00:09:26 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I feel kinda bad because I asked luke to reopen that one: The prior version did the opposite accidentally: accepted nonstandard txn to you which was bad bad bad, and rightly was directed into the reject bin.
3 2012-08-03 00:09:54 <gmaxwell> The non-standard from you doesn't seem overtly objectionable, but I'm not quite sure I understand the use-cases.
4 2012-08-03 00:11:11 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: seems like it might confuse the wallet code
5 2012-08-03 00:12:25 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: Indeed. But you can also do that with raw txn generally.
6 2012-08-03 00:12:39 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: regardless, if you think I should reopen, I will do so
7 2012-08-03 00:12:49 <gmaxwell> E.g. If I generate a txn where only one input is mine, we will show the other inputs vaue as sign-swapped fees.
8 2012-08-03 00:12:55 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: or you can do it yourself
9 2012-08-03 00:13:38 <gmaxwell> yep, I'll reopen I think it's worth some review and consideration in its now-intended form. Especially with rawtransactions encouraging expirementation with new txn types.
10 2012-08-03 00:20:30 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: gmaxwell reopened pull request 1648 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1648>
11 2012-08-03 00:23:30 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: good point, I guess you could trigger it with the new rawtx stuff
12 2012-08-03 00:24:26 <gmaxwell> Right. But at the same time, the wallet is absolutely confusable. I'm currently pondering if the behavior shouldn't be guarded by a default off config option until we've hardened the wallet code more against weird transactions.
13 2012-08-03 00:25:27 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'm not sure how it makes the wallet confusion any more likely?
14 2012-08-03 00:25:44 <luke-jr> you can already confuse the wallet in all the same ways with standard fee'd transactions, right?
15 2012-08-03 00:26:31 <gmaxwell> I know of one way to confuse the wallet (what I mentioned above). Though the confusion doesn't seem especially harmful. God knows what else exists though.
16 2012-08-03 00:26:44 <jgarzik> this sort of typifies the reason why the client does not mine or relay !isStandard transactions
17 2012-08-03 00:26:53 <jgarzik> it protects against uncharted territory
18 2012-08-03 00:27:17 <luke-jr> jgarzik: that makes sense when the transaction is foreign, but not so much when it's one you made yourself
19 2012-08-03 00:27:32 <luke-jr> IMO