📅 Original date posted:2018-05-09 📝 Original message:You should make a “0 fee ...

Johnson Lau [ARCHIVE] /

npub1fyh…2mv9

2023-06-07 18:11:55

in reply to nevent1q…8ut9

📅 Original date posted:2018-05-09
📝 Original message:You should make a “0 fee tx with exactly one OP_TRUE output” standard, but nothing else. This makes sure CPFP will always be needed, so the OP_TRUE output won’t pollute the UTXO set

Instead, would you consider to use ANYONECANPAY to sign the tx, so it is possible add more inputs for fees? The total tx size is bigger than the OP_TRUE approach, but you don’t need to ask for any protocol change.

In long-term, I think the right way is to have a more flexible SIGHASH system to allow people to add more inputs and outputs easily.

> On 9 May 2018, at 7:57 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The largest problem we are having today with the lightning
> protocol is trying to predict future fees. Eltoo solves this elegantly,
> but meanwhile we would like to include a 546 satoshi OP_TRUE output in
> commitment transactions so that we use minimal fees and then use CPFP
> (which can't be done at the moment due to CSV delays on outputs).
>
> Unfortunately, we'd have to P2SH it at the moment as a raw 'OP_TRUE' is
> non-standard. Are there any reasons not to suggest such a policy
> change?
>
> Thanks!
> Rusty.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Author Public Key

npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:11:55

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "79d4ddb26a22ad0cd2f145246ae0f3a6b9e897d182a178aa30faf264e07ecd25", "pubkey": "492fa402e838904bdc8eb2c8fafa1aa895df26438bfd998c71b01cb9db550ff7", "created_at": 1686161515, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "caee4e3828cad70a0aa9bfba9569480bc6157a528d4896eeab11f571613a9d97", "", "root" ], [ "e", "8a66314ae46df1eed16c144d0f42f7f738b522d188b761f1a21286fd7282c8ff", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-05-09\n📝 Original message:You should make a “0 fee tx with exactly one OP_TRUE output” standard, but nothing else. This makes sure CPFP will always be needed, so the OP_TRUE output won’t pollute the UTXO set\n\nInstead, would you consider to use ANYONECANPAY to sign the tx, so it is possible add more inputs for fees? The total tx size is bigger than the OP_TRUE approach, but you don’t need to ask for any protocol change.\n\nIn long-term, I think the right way is to have a more flexible SIGHASH system to allow people to add more inputs and outputs easily.\n\n\n\n\u003e On 9 May 2018, at 7:57 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Hi all,\n\u003e \n\u003e The largest problem we are having today with the lightning\n\u003e protocol is trying to predict future fees. Eltoo solves this elegantly,\n\u003e but meanwhile we would like to include a 546 satoshi OP_TRUE output in\n\u003e commitment transactions so that we use minimal fees and then use CPFP\n\u003e (which can't be done at the moment due to CSV delays on outputs).\n\u003e \n\u003e Unfortunately, we'd have to P2SH it at the moment as a raw 'OP_TRUE' is\n\u003e non-standard. Are there any reasons not to suggest such a policy\n\u003e change?\n\u003e \n\u003e Thanks!\n\u003e Rusty.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev", "sig": "6571f125bbdd8b9c23a33199a8d23dbdc665408a85564b94eb326cabf1fd82f8335f72b64fd7f3a0adea1ea66ad954129caf5ac2296c6720426017e8c03dbee2" }