Make pathological transactions with more than 2500 legacy signature operations non-standard

In the discourse on multiparty transaction creation protocols within the Bitcoin development community, Antoine clarifies a crucial misunderstanding regarding the nature of contributions to these protocols. He asserts that attempting to contribute a non-standard input is not considered an attack nor is it something that can be outright prevented given the inherent lack of trust among participants. This distinction underlines a fundamental aspect of how security and functionality considerations are balanced in the design of cryptocurrency systems.

Further elaboration is provided on the specifics of a test mentioned in the previous communication, which involves spending Pay-to-Witness-Script-Hash (P2WSH) inputs. Antoine points out a critical distinction related to the introduction of a new limit that exclusively affects transactions involving legacy script inputs, not those utilizing Segwit inputs as the test does. This clarification is vital for understanding the scope and impact of recent protocol adjustments.

The necessity of introducing this new limit is rationalized through the potential existence of transactions that, while standard under current definitions, could nonetheless be considered pathological due to their structure or effects. Antoine supports this point by referencing examples included in the tests of a Pull Request (PR), suggesting that even Segwit transactions, like the one discussed, could exemplify the kinds of problematic transactions the new limit aims to address. Through this explanation, Antoine contributes to a deeper comprehension of the nuances involved in evolving Bitcoin's transaction handling rules to mitigate against edge cases while maintaining the network's robustness and flexibility.