1 2017-05-15 01:16:13 <rusty> luke-jr: doesn't your script-to-check-block-version proposal break everything except boutique P2SH users?
 2 2017-05-15 01:22:48 <luke-jr> boutique? I don't understand the question.
 3 2017-05-15 01:32:42 <rusty> So, can't use this to pay with P2PKH, or anyone not expecting to receive it, really.
 4 2017-05-15 01:33:15 <rusty> luke-jr: Making it more expensive to signal than the 10-byte(?) overhead would imply.
 5 2017-05-15 01:35:43 <luke-jr> You can, just put in in scriptSig. Plus, p2pkh is long obsolete by now.
 6 2017-05-15 01:36:09 <luke-jr> ironically it works better w/ p2pkh since you can decide it after you receive
 7 2017-05-15 01:36:51 <luke-jr> this is also one of the limitations of segwit not allowing scriptSig under signature
 8 2017-05-15 01:37:48 <rusty> Good point about putting it in scriptSig, weird as that feels.  But I still prefer the simplicity of nVersion.
 9 2017-05-15 01:38:14 <rusty> luke-jr: well, not *having* scriptSig but just a stack also kills this idea for segwit.
10 2017-05-15 01:38:55 <luke-jr> nVersion may be the better solution; it's probably cleaner to implement.
11 2017-05-15 01:39:38 <luke-jr> rusty: segwit *could* have allowed scriptSig to simply be under signature for additional criteria; but probably someone will add that back better in a new script version
12 2017-05-15 01:40:39 <rusty> The problem with nVersion is the timeout.  I can't figure out how to do it in a way which doesn't have a corner case where a once-valid tx becomes invalid later.
13 2017-05-15 01:40:56 <rusty> But OTOH I'm not convinced the timeout is critical, see post on bitcoin-dev.
14 2017-05-15 02:03:54 <Iriez> Has anything changed in default behavior node policy regarding the default length of time to keep transactions in mempool? Im seeing a bunch of tx's that are getting re-relayed over and over and over without the owners rebroadcasting the transaction. Is this a new type of attack? Are there known business nodes that have adopted this rebroadcast behavior? (these are obviously low fee
15 2017-05-15 02:03:54 <Iriez> tx's that are not confirming)
16 2017-05-15 02:05:05 <Iriez> And, in a situation where there is no change and the coins are being sent to another entity (which the sender has no control over), is there any solution to this scenario? Is a double spend possible with a higher fee?
17 2017-05-15 02:20:48 <Iriez> And by anything changed, i mean in core over the last few releases has any defaults changed in regards to how long unconfirmed tx's are stored