📅 Original date posted:2018-05-10
📝 Original message:But in prnciple I don't oppose to making it stardard, just want to
understand what's the point.
On Thu, 10 May 2018, 02:16 Jorge Timón, <jtimon at jtimon.cc> 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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180510/46aa7cc4/attachment.html>;
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 18:12:00
in reply to nevent1q…96hz
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 18:12:00Event JSON
{
"id": "3f06ca5fd94d8db12e3f15e7a6690f49a265e143192cab8ce90b0f4cf65a640e",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686161520,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"caee4e3828cad70a0aa9bfba9569480bc6157a528d4896eeab11f571613a9d97",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fe36f625a0c09c9d1cf53eef7a736cceb6b72e8da63c6f7bb7a89a1e7ef08568",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-05-10\n📝 Original message:But in prnciple I don't oppose to making it stardard, just want to\nunderstand what's the point.\n\nOn Thu, 10 May 2018, 02:16 Jorge Timón, \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I fail to see what's the practical difference between sending to op_true\n\u003e and giving the coins are fees directly. Perhaps it is ao obvious to you\n\u003e that you forget to mention it?\n\u003e If you did I honestlt missed it.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, 9 May 2018, 01:58 Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev, \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Hi all,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The largest problem we are having today with the lightning\n\u003e\u003e protocol is trying to predict future fees. Eltoo solves this elegantly,\n\u003e\u003e but meanwhile we would like to include a 546 satoshi OP_TRUE output in\n\u003e\u003e commitment transactions so that we use minimal fees and then use CPFP\n\u003e\u003e (which can't be done at the moment due to CSV delays on outputs).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Unfortunately, we'd have to P2SH it at the moment as a raw 'OP_TRUE' is\n\u003e\u003e non-standard. Are there any reasons not to suggest such a policy\n\u003e\u003e change?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Thanks!\n\u003e\u003e Rusty.\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180510/46aa7cc4/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "ef97fb96beb39c6ac64ffb112a6eec480dc96c581e718a377d5467cbf7b5f186f46e70a0952740c3a135d93824b1514a22797f844bb8ad18356f6a055a6a39b4"
}