From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>,
"Bitcoin Protocol Discussion"
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard?
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 09:43:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201805100943.29654.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDoJEKQXPipWY5y6MUgQRu1W_ogBHL7ibjt8dD_=n2=ptg@mail.gmail.com>
You'd send 0 satoshis to OP_TRUE, creating a UTXO. Then you spend that 0-value
UTXO in another transaction with a normal fee. The idea is that to get the
latter fee, the miner needs to confirm the original tranaction with the
0-value OP_TRUE.
(Aside, in case it wasn't clear on my previous email, the template-script idea
would not make it *mandatory* to spend in the same block, but that the UTXO
would merely cease to be valid *after* that block. So the 0-value output does
not take up a UTXO db entry when left unused.)
On Thursday 10 May 2018 09:33:29 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev 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@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@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-10 9:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-08 23:57 Rusty Russell
2018-05-09 0:24 ` Olaoluwa Osuntokun
2018-05-09 3:02 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-10 2:08 ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-09 17:56 ` Johnson Lau
2018-05-09 19:27 ` Peter Todd
2018-05-09 20:19 ` Johnson Lau
2018-05-09 20:59 ` Peter Todd
2018-05-09 22:06 ` Olaoluwa Osuntokun
2018-05-10 2:06 ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-10 2:27 ` Luke Dashjr
2018-05-10 3:07 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-15 1:22 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-17 2:44 ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-17 10:28 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-17 17:35 ` Christian Decker
2018-05-17 20:06 ` Jim Posen
2018-05-21 3:44 ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-21 3:56 ` Peter Todd
2018-05-30 2:47 ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-31 2:47 ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-21 14:20 ` Russell O'Connor
2018-05-10 9:33 ` Jorge Timón
2018-05-10 9:33 ` Jorge Timón
2018-05-10 9:43 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2018-05-11 2:44 ` ZmnSCPxj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201805100943.29654.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox