📅 Original date posted:2018-10-12
📝 Original message:
ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> writes:
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, October 12, 2018 2:36 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
>> ZmnSCPxj ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com writes:
>>
>> > Good morning Rusty and list,
>> >
>> > > 1. Rather than trying to agree on what fees will be in the future, we
>> > > should use an OP_TRUE-style output to allow CPFP (Roasbeef)
>> > >
>> >
>> > My understanding is that this would require some base-layer changes at Bitcoin level first? At minimum IsStandard() modification, and I believe luke-jr suggested, to make a consensus rule that OP_TRUE would not be spendable beyond the block it appears in (i.e. it is used only for CPFP hooking) to reduce UTXO database size at lower layer.
>>
>> If you look further down, it's actually a P2WSH to "OP_TRUE". Wastes
>> some space, but it works today.
>
> Ah, I see. This will change again if the luke-jr proposal pushes through?
>
> Will robots arise which will attempt to claim as many OP_TRUE outputs as they can find, claiming them afterwards during very-low-fee periods?
I hope so! It's our technique to avoid polluting the UTXO set.
Cheers,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-09 12:51:50
in reply to nevent1q…cld7
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-09 12:51:50Event JSON
{
"id": "9586d5726f248839ef25dad1af2aa3303b7baaf3232fd3975412d2bcc98f0210",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686315110,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c396150541b93fd7dcbb99733d0101c5012b71f16be611915f67f9ed8b9c1baa",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ed8030dbb907eda698458f20d0b87f615b163ef18bab2d82f13e67d8bf8dd49f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-10-12\n📝 Original message:\nZmnSCPxj \u003cZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.\n\u003e\n\u003e ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐\n\u003e On Friday, October 12, 2018 2:36 PM, Rusty Russell \u003crusty at rustcorp.com.au\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ZmnSCPxj ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com writes:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Good morning Rusty and list,\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003e 1. Rather than trying to agree on what fees will be in the future, we\n\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003e should use an OP_TRUE-style output to allow CPFP (Roasbeef)\n\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e My understanding is that this would require some base-layer changes at Bitcoin level first? At minimum IsStandard() modification, and I believe luke-jr suggested, to make a consensus rule that OP_TRUE would not be spendable beyond the block it appears in (i.e. it is used only for CPFP hooking) to reduce UTXO database size at lower layer.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If you look further down, it's actually a P2WSH to \"OP_TRUE\". Wastes\n\u003e\u003e some space, but it works today.\n\u003e\n\u003e Ah, I see. This will change again if the luke-jr proposal pushes through?\n\u003e\n\u003e Will robots arise which will attempt to claim as many OP_TRUE outputs as they can find, claiming them afterwards during very-low-fee periods?\n\nI hope so! It's our technique to avoid polluting the UTXO set.\n\nCheers,\nRusty.",
"sig": "337d2f9b2108a3163722e0b55f71f72a729a45920fb0f3116d349ad682f0baaa9c3f3e8d7a26b3bc447927ca3a252efea94000eaf9a34a8001f172c86a023404"
}