ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-10-12 📝 Original message: Good morning Rusty and ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-10-12
📝 Original message:
Good morning Rusty and list,
>
> 1. Rather than trying to agree on what fees will be in the future, we
> should use an OP_TRUE-style output to allow CPFP (Roasbeef)
>
My understanding is that this would require some base-layer changes at Bitcoin level first? At minimum IsStandard() modification, and I believe luke-jr suggested, to make a consensus rule that OP_TRUE would not be spendable beyond the block it appears in (i.e. it is used only for CPFP hooking) to reduce UTXO database size at lower layer.
It seems the other parts of this proposal, do not need this base-layer change; so, this may delay the other parts (but perhaps it is not at all an issue to delay the other parts of this proposal...?).
> 3. The CLTV timeout should be symmetrical to avoid trying to game the
> peer into closing. (Connor IIRC?).
I know this has been discussed before, but I wonder the rationale for the original asymmetric design, and the rationale for the new symmetric design.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
📝 Original message:
Good morning Rusty and list,
>
> 1. Rather than trying to agree on what fees will be in the future, we
> should use an OP_TRUE-style output to allow CPFP (Roasbeef)
>
My understanding is that this would require some base-layer changes at Bitcoin level first? At minimum IsStandard() modification, and I believe luke-jr suggested, to make a consensus rule that OP_TRUE would not be spendable beyond the block it appears in (i.e. it is used only for CPFP hooking) to reduce UTXO database size at lower layer.
It seems the other parts of this proposal, do not need this base-layer change; so, this may delay the other parts (but perhaps it is not at all an issue to delay the other parts of this proposal...?).
> 3. The CLTV timeout should be symmetrical to avoid trying to game the
> peer into closing. (Connor IIRC?).
I know this has been discussed before, but I wonder the rationale for the original asymmetric design, and the rationale for the new symmetric design.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj