đź“… Original date posted:2018-05-09
đź“ť Original message:> On 10 May 2018, at 3:27 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 01:56:46AM +0800, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> You should make a “0 fee tx with exactly one OP_TRUE output” standard, but nothing else. This makes sure CPFP will always be needed, so the OP_TRUE output won’t pollute the UTXO set
>>
>> Instead, would you consider to use ANYONECANPAY to sign the tx, so it is possible add more inputs for fees? The total tx size is bigger than the OP_TRUE approach, but you don’t need to ask for any protocol change.
>>
>> In long-term, I think the right way is to have a more flexible SIGHASH system to allow people to add more inputs and outputs easily.
>
> I don't think that will work, as a zero-fee tx won't get relayed even with
> CPFP, due to the fact that we haven't yet implemented package-based tx
> relaying.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
My only concern is UTXO pollution. There could be a “CPFP anchor” softfork that outputs with empty scriptPubKey and 0 value are spendable only in the same block. If not spent immediately, they become invalid and are removed from UTXO. But I still think the best solution is a more flexible SIGHASH system, which doesn’t need CPFP at all.
Johnson Lau [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fy…p2mv9
2023-06-07 18:11:56
in reply to nevent1q…745l
Author Public Key
npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9Published at
2023-06-07 18:11:56Event JSON
{
"id": "705b5134917269921ce32445cd55e100f905d55d61e454409b6815acdbcf45a0",
"pubkey": "492fa402e838904bdc8eb2c8fafa1aa895df26438bfd998c71b01cb9db550ff7",
"created_at": 1686161516,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"caee4e3828cad70a0aa9bfba9569480bc6157a528d4896eeab11f571613a9d97",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f24ec72852aca0adac2568670d8f475eadc66779f1d9b1d14e1f6f087fd1118e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-05-09\n📝 Original message:\u003e On 10 May 2018, at 3:27 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 01:56:46AM +0800, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e You should make a “0 fee tx with exactly one OP_TRUE output” standard, but nothing else. This makes sure CPFP will always be needed, so the OP_TRUE output won’t pollute the UTXO set\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Instead, would you consider to use ANYONECANPAY to sign the tx, so it is possible add more inputs for fees? The total tx size is bigger than the OP_TRUE approach, but you don’t need to ask for any protocol change.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e In long-term, I think the right way is to have a more flexible SIGHASH system to allow people to add more inputs and outputs easily.\n\u003e \n\u003e I don't think that will work, as a zero-fee tx won't get relayed even with\n\u003e CPFP, due to the fact that we haven't yet implemented package-based tx\n\u003e relaying.\n\u003e \n\u003e -- \n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\nMy only concern is UTXO pollution. There could be a “CPFP anchor” softfork that outputs with empty scriptPubKey and 0 value are spendable only in the same block. If not spent immediately, they become invalid and are removed from UTXO. But I still think the best solution is a more flexible SIGHASH system, which doesn’t need CPFP at all.",
"sig": "faaaef02ed196921e5263720e9aa523bfe699d8580e4c5ea4189abd6344433c7e6b93d79d6ff5c7987caac732024cc67a21bae7a76ed39892ca15d94ab2dfb39"
}