1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5652F900
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 10 May 2018 09:43:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD37683
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 10 May 2018 09:43:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c] (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64DE738B5DF7;
Thu, 10 May 2018 09:43:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:180510:jtimon@jtimon.cc::b2Gc0ZzRvEb0z3cI:9W=B
X-Hashcash: 1:25:180510:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::r+neo0UNmAnJwJOj:aYXJS
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Jorge =?utf-8?q?Tim=C3=B3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 09:43:28 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20100827.1168748)
References: <87po25lmzs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<CABm2gDoJEKQXPipWY5y6MUgQRu1W_ogBHL7ibjt8dD_=n2=ptg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDoJEKQXPipWY5y6MUgQRu1W_ogBHL7ibjt8dD_=n2=ptg@mail.gmail.com>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201805100943.29654.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 09:43:51 -0000
You'd send 0 satoshis to OP_TRUE, creating a UTXO. Then you spend that 0-va=
lue=20
UTXO in another transaction with a normal fee. The idea is that to get the=
=20
latter fee, the miner needs to confirm the original tranaction with the=20
0-value OP_TRUE.
(Aside, in case it wasn't clear on my previous email, the template-script i=
dea=20
would not make it *mandatory* to spend in the same block, but that the UTXO=
=20
would merely cease to be valid *after* that block. So the 0-value output do=
es=20
not take up a UTXO db entry when left unused.)
On Thursday 10 May 2018 09:33:29 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n 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
|
