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>
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>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard?
Precedence: list

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