Wishlist Feature: Approve/Disapprove Incoming Transactions

[sgk]

In view of the recent malleability issue in Bitcoin protocol, I was wondering if it would help to have a feature to approve/disapprove incoming transactions.
For example if someone sends you 'mystery' 1 satoshi which you don't want. You can disapprove the transfer and it goes back to the original address.

[1714850426]

1714850426

[1714850426]

1714850426

[1714850426]

1714850426

[justusranvier]

Bitcoin doesn't work like that. Recipients have nothing to do whatsoever with whether transactions are processed or not.

[str4wm4n]

could it work like that though?

[sgk]

Bitcoin doesn't work like that. Recipients have nothing to do whatsoever with whether transactions are processed or not.

I know; that's why I am saying it to be a 'wishlist' feature. Would it be good to have it implemented in Bitcoin protocol? Would it work for good if implemented? What would be the good/bad sides of such a feature?

[Pente]

You could always select that input and send it back to its source if you don't want it.

[Barek]

You are asking for the client to ignore small inputs. You specify a threshold and everything smaller will be ignored.

That is certainly a reasonable feature I could see being added.

[sgk]

You could always select that input and send it back to its source if you don't want it.

That's not what I intended. I was more concerned to avoid issues like malleability, so I am talking about 'avoiding the original transaction' rather than 'originating a second one to reverse the funds'.

[auzaar]

In view of the recent malleability issue in Bitcoin protocol, I was wondering if it would help to have a feature to approve/disapprove incoming transactions.
For example if someone sends you 'mystery' 1 satoshi which you don't want. You can disapprove the transfer and it goes back to the original address.

Why it should go back, it should be dropped from the blockchain, but that would be not be easy as it is block-chain

[justusranvier]

could it work like that though?

Is it possible to turn a bicycle in to a hair dryer? Maybe, but afterwards you won't be able to use it as a bicycle any more.

You might think you're asking for a simple feature, but what you're really asking for is an entirely different system with opposite properties from what Bitcoin has now in nearly every way.

[yatsey87]

Could a minimum fee not be implemented, one that would make sending 1 satoshi currently futile?

[picobit]

Could a minimum fee not be implemented, one that would make sending 1 satoshi currently futile?

It is.  Most of these 1 satoshi transactions will never confirm, and will go away after a week os so.

But some do, as some miners include transactions even without a fee.  That is how it will necessarily be in a distributed system.

[yatsey87]

Could a minimum fee not be implemented, one that would make sending 1 satoshi currently futile?

It is.  Most of these 1 satoshi transactions will never confirm, and will go away after a week os so.

But some do, as some miners include transactions even without a fee.  That is how it will necessarily be in a distributed system.

They still get sent though and linger in peoples wallets.

[guybrushthreepwood]

Could a minimum fee not be implemented, one that would make sending 1 satoshi currently futile?

It is.  Most of these 1 satoshi transactions will never confirm, and will go away after a week os so.

But some do, as some miners include transactions even without a fee.  That is how it will necessarily be in a distributed system.

Mine went after a few days.

[Barek]

Just ignore them. As long as the client does not include them in a transaction, they don't do anything.

Like I wrote, an option to visually remove outputs below a certain threshold would take care of it. Until then, you just have to show some willpower. You can do it!