update -rejecttokens to catch OpenStamps

[Retropex]

Filter based on their own protocol.

count for #64

[luke-jr]

Can you add a unit test (and preferably a real "transaction" to compare the unit test to)?

[Retropex]

Like that in src/test/transaction_tests.cpp?

t.vout[0].scriptPubKey = CScript() << ParseHex("0020003c7374616d703a7b2270223a227372632d3230222c226f70223a227472616e");
CheckIsNotStandard(t, "tokens-olga");

I will need some help, I don't understand script enough.

check reason_in == reason has failed [tokens-olga != scriptpubkey]

[Ataraxia009]

Can you make reject tokens more granular here instead of it being a blanket reject. Some users might want to reject just runes and not all tokens

[Ataraxia009]

Giving an option will lead to more usage anyways leading to less spam

[Retropex]

Maybe -rejecttokens=1 for all and some thing like -rejecttokens=runes,stamps,etc...

[Ataraxia009]

make sure to reflect all changes in the spam filtering window in the options dialogue as well

[luke-jr]

Can you make reject tokens more granular here instead of it being a blanket reject.

This might be too convoluted for this stage. Better to wait for a more scriptable policy engine?

Some users might want to reject just runes and not all tokens

Why?

[Ataraxia009]

Can you make reject tokens more granular here instead of it being a blanket reject.

This might be too convoluted for this stage. Better to wait for a more scriptable policy engine?

Okay with pushing this till later.

Some users might want to reject just runes and not all tokens

Why?

Spam is subjective, some people might think some is spam and some is not. Given that knots' stance is: we give you control over your mempool, this idea aligns more with node runners being in control.

[luke-jr]

Merged in upcoming 29