From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA543E2D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 11 May 2018 02:44:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-1857040130.protonmail.ch (mail-1857040130.protonmail.ch
	[185.70.40.130])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFB2B67F
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 11 May 2018 02:44:22 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 22:44:13 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
	s=default; t=1526006660;
	bh=HQpYaapmOQXLdXrSW89HgjxNbPjswneSIXH01qgpBoI=;
	h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
	Feedback-ID:From;
	b=tk7n9Ve2HhJff/dwjl1gT+DQiRTl6X+upKn3Sos+Szbh3nuP0IbyoGv2tSNvyD2D8
	lXehsd5NC1b358qxyCpEUgm6sMfUNyEhGAz9c/qUX0VON8UaeAfRbXKbcn+Pr/mztA
	Ks03iASkoMOS7/oK7bLcb2hb8uD49kqULMeNhhiY=
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
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 11 May 2018 02:46:41 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 02:44:23 -0000

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