Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 22:44:13 -0400
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <85BPI8zj4VsPA41MQtIP9zozZlAgX-QOJerUTvQmAdL4bjdP8Ooh1jkZnks1I_Ce2nqK-bUTOXeNR3wnmeKR4Ml-hRTp9Uo_l7jx7F_GaNs=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201805100943.29654.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <87po25lmzs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CABm2gDoJEKQXPipWY5y6MUgQRu1W_ogBHL7ibjt8dD_=n2=ptg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201805100943.29654.luke@dashjr.org>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard?
Precedence: list

Good morning Luke and list,


>=20
> (Aside, in case it wasn't clear on my previous email, the template-script=
 idea
>=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.)

Thank you for clearing this up.  It seems, I misunderstood.  So my earlier =
rumination, about having two options for Lightning, is incorrect.

For Lightning, we just need to add this 0-value OP_TRUE output always to tr=
ansactions that require both side signatures (commitment, HTLC-timeout, HTL=
C-success), and it will always serve as a "hook" for  adding more fees if n=
eeded.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj