ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-05-09 📝 Original message:Good morning Olauluwa, I ...

📅 Original date posted:2018-05-09
📝 Original message:Good morning Olauluwa,

I believe P2WSH is larger due to the script hash commitment in the `scriptPubKey` as well as the actual script revelation in the `witnessScript`, whereas, a flat OP_TRUE in the `scriptPubKey` is much smaller and can be spent with an empty `scriptSig`. It seems this is the entirety of the reason to desire an isStandard OP_TRUE.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On May 9, 2018 8:24 AM, Olaoluwa Osuntokun via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> What are the downsides of just using p2wsh? This route can be rolled out immediately, while policy changes are pretty "fuzzy" and would require a near uniform rollout in order to ensure wide propagation of the commitment transactions.
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2018, 4:58 PM 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/20180508/15690883/attachment-0001.html>;