Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-10-12 📝 Original message: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-10-12
📝 Original message:
ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> writes:
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, October 12, 2018 2:36 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
>> ZmnSCPxj ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com writes:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> If you look further down, it's actually a P2WSH to "OP_TRUE". Wastes
>> some space, but it works today.
>
> Ah, I see. This will change again if the luke-jr proposal pushes through?
>
> Will robots arise which will attempt to claim as many OP_TRUE outputs as they can find, claiming them afterwards during very-low-fee periods?
I hope so! It's our technique to avoid polluting the UTXO set.
Cheers,
Rusty.
📝 Original message:
ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> writes:
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, October 12, 2018 2:36 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
>> ZmnSCPxj ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com writes:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> If you look further down, it's actually a P2WSH to "OP_TRUE". Wastes
>> some space, but it works today.
>
> Ah, I see. This will change again if the luke-jr proposal pushes through?
>
> Will robots arise which will attempt to claim as many OP_TRUE outputs as they can find, claiming them afterwards during very-low-fee periods?
I hope so! It's our technique to avoid polluting the UTXO set.
Cheers,
Rusty.