Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-05-10 📝 Original message:But in prnciple I don't ...

📅 Original date posted:2018-05-10
📝 Original message:But in prnciple I don't oppose to making it stardard, just want to
understand what's the point.

On Thu, 10 May 2018, 02:16 Jorge Timón, <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:

> I fail to see what's the practical difference between sending to op_true
> and giving the coins are fees directly. Perhaps it is ao obvious to you
> that you forget to mention it?
> If you did I honestlt missed it.
>
> On Wed, 9 May 2018, 01:58 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180510/46aa7cc4/attachment.html>;