5
1
Eligius already will accept any transaction, "standard" or not, without bias.
...
Indeed, and Eligius' willingness to do so indirectly cost MTGOX many thousands of bitcoins when a software bug caused them to send some weird transactions that Eligius mined.
Can anyone provide a reference that explain this incident? When did it occur?
2Good heavens, this is like blaming Linus Torvalds because you deleted all the data on your Linux machine with "rm -rf". Have you no clue how bitcoin works? – eldentyrell – 2012-01-16T05:31:00.660
2Yeah, Mt Gox lost the Bitcoins because they issued transactions that spent the Bitcoins but had outputs nobody could claim. The spec is clear that a miner's sole responsibility is to make sure the transactions properly claim their inputs. In general, there is no way to tell if the outputs are claimable. – David Schwartz – 2012-01-16T06:06:35.033
@eldentyrell - the title is a direct quote that I'm inquiring about. A legitimate answer would be "it is Mt. Gox's fault, not Eligius'". I have reverted your edit, please don't redo it. – ripper234 – 2012-01-16T07:06:53.617
1And there he goes trying to revert my revert, claiming that his original edit was an "admin-approved edit". Lovely. – ripper234 – 2012-01-16T08:03:25.337
1
@eldentyrell - thanks for putting this on Meta and not linking to it from here. Luckily I picked today to open Meta. http://meta.bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/228/can-we-establish-some-sort-of-policy-about-slander
– ripper234 – 2012-01-16T09:10:27.563