Hi Jeremy, Right now, lightning anchor outputs use a 330 sats amount. Each commitment transaction has two such outputs, and only one of them is spent to help the transaction get confirmed, so the other stays there and bloats the utxo set. We allow anyone to spend them after a csv of 16 blocks, in the hope that someone will claim a batch of them when the fees are low and remove them from the utxo set. However, that trick wouldn't work with 0-value outputs, as no-one would ever claim them (doesn't make economical sense). We actually need to have two of them to avoid pinning: each participant is able to spend only one of these outputs while the parent tx is unconfirmed. I believe N-party protocols would likely need N such outputs (not sure). You mention a change to the carve-out rule, can you explain it further? I believe it would be a necessary step, otherwise 0-value outputs for CPFP actually seem worse than low-value ones... Thanks, Bastien Le mer. 8 déc. 2021 à 02:29, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : > Bitcoin Devs (+cc lightning-dev), > > Earlier this year I proposed allowing 0 value outputs and that was shot > down for various reasons, see > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-August/019307.html > > I think that there can be a simple carve out now that package relay is > being launched based on my research into covenants from 2017 > https://rubin.io/public/pdfs/multi-txn-contracts.pdf. > > Essentially, if we allow 0 value outputs BUT require as a matter of policy > (or consensus, but policy has major advantages) that the output be used as > an Intermediate Output (that is, in order for the transaction to be > creating it to be in the mempool it must be spent by another tx) with the > additional rule that the parent must have a higher feerate after CPFP'ing > the parent than the parent alone we can both: > > 1) Allow 0 value outputs for things like Anchor Outputs (very good for not > getting your eltoo/Decker channels pinned by junk witness data using Anchor > Inputs, very good for not getting your channels drained by at-dust outputs) > 2) Not allow 0 value utxos to proliferate long > 3) It still being valid for a 0 value that somehow gets created to be > spent by the fee paying txn later > > Just doing this as a mempool policy also has the benefits of not > introducing any new validation rules. Although in general the IUTXO concept > is very attractive, it complicates mempool :( > > I understand this may also be really helpful for CTV based contracts (like > vault continuation hooks) as well as things like spacechains. > > Such a rule -- if it's not clear -- presupposes a fully working package > relay system. > > I believe that this addresses all the issues with allowing 0 value outputs > to be created for the narrow case of immediately spendable outputs. > > Cheers, > > Jeremy > > p.s. why another post today? Thank Greg > https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1468390561417547780 > > > -- > @JeremyRubin > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >