summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/95/d7b1d0907a74022f0c88f4728cd4bdfc4bff1e
blob: 3c1968a0d6cc7d8226c8bb4817e20ce1839f1309 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <jan@uos.de>) id 1QWZYj-00068m-8i
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:45:57 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from vm135.rz.uni-osnabrueck.de ([131.173.16.10]
	helo=smtp-auth.serv.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE)
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1QWZYh-0003PA-Mc
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:45:57 +0000
Received: from msmtp-using-host (0xbcb2ab7c.ronqu1.dynamic.dsl.tele.dk
	[188.178.171.124] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0)
	by smtp-auth.serv.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id
	p5EJjjJR002102
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO)
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:45:47 +0200
From: jan@uos.de
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:45:30 +0200
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20110614194530.GA3152@dax.lan.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379,
	Antispam-Data: 2011.6.14.192714 (Univ. Osnabrueck)
X-PMX-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=
	BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1000_1099 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0,
	BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, FROM_MISSING 0,
	NO_URI_FOUND 0, __CD 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0,
	__MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,
	__SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0,
	__USER_AGENT 0
X-PMX-Spam-Level: IIIIIIII
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	0.3 MAY_BE_FORGED Relay IP's reverse DNS does not resolve to IP
X-Headers-End: 1QWZYh-0003PA-Mc
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Question about dust spam rule
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:45:57 -0000

Hi there!

As can been seen from this code block

  // To limit dust spam, require MIN_TX_FEE/MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE if any output is less than 0.01
  if (nMinFee < nBaseFee)
      BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, vout)
          if (txout.nValue < CENT)
              nMinFee = nBaseFee;

a fee is required as soon as any output is less than CENT.

I was wondering: would it be possible to loosen this rule to something
like "if _all_ outputs are less than CENT" or maybe "if more than 50% of
all outputs are less than CENT"?

The reason is, that I'm currently working on a project, where I would
like to take a small cut on transactions passing through (probably not
an usual requirement) and a lot of those small cuts would probably bump
into this rule.

Isn't this rule mainly meant to prevent lots of transactions with small
coins? So "all small coins" should work as well as "any small coins" or
am I missing something? (things like creating large transactions should
already be caught by other rules, right?)

Regards!
Jan