From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 803DC7F9 for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 09:33:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04A51683 for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 09:33:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f170.google.com with SMTP id z4-v6so2265853iof.5 for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 02:33:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XbJeXV3Dxqph8S2ymy5PkQk/xiFcTUQWMV4cmfKppZk=; b=Wxi6hOxy52hzNq7meAH/c1ebXccVxueaGn3gUlHBxyTZHqgLxCQCZczMbAFM6Ty54+ iKXkUrP4MTuVgw31GZdUiQu/adhet0mQ38Cgzv6T6cpIyuroJqZ+I5EJYLY0u3RI164Z rOTWMZ4C50wHtWP/qRVR6m7qBJwHyGrCeBzMa1jl2p9Xa7zMIXBIXlGcJPtuuCIoxqhZ pyg5QedPiEHldIgLoho4zo6xd3Fpv0fun5cw6A9+XhoXCAHhTmVkjkYOZ0MFzo71BIkX cJyMqM6IVDmnwwiYMuL1EnlCrupGDMK1+pTzL0PqD7u2W7j2r8+Zigyv0LLbiSEHsYnX 7T/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=XbJeXV3Dxqph8S2ymy5PkQk/xiFcTUQWMV4cmfKppZk=; b=KfnKsteq0xN/6ATmSnaHb0QHz9yMRvvhEv5nuYyzLYPeK8mZmJOdIsFPviB8u3s0EY PTJRl+HQRtgrMex2oOc2Cait/FrG8r7B1w7su5Iv40jscywc++XQRqpFsbW6IU8isg7v 4W31lFV5FWXVdA3lQIcC2bXVuo5Zg2s/cflU3OEMjqlmqZptEJUCo5V8u6Moo5XUg6+D 36ERLqfHI36Xhakel70jVo6czu0P9Y5oOJTKxyej3HU7ngcus3yW3ndwShMZQTdK93Ov VqVwTSLlsUoh+K2BHxZfzaP390OQJgl7lOp8QF/yGrdKefeIGW7R+SrkiRWZaiqEF2AW mmOA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwfxAqgXAg5niT05zEa/JoG4LJlNbicoRZyThCY3Iou2kIwTOfFF IBt3yN1T0ny1MsxFm1imkdB7YalW6AnRuz20FvLfxw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZp4Oha9staCjUU3HJ78y8Hnw/hJ3Jvj+30gznBiuscSBqXqW0rqhGdJmvKLDGSMje4zi7apEUjfNJjMZzAbKVk= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:403:: with SMTP id 3-v6mr662120ioe.105.1525944820347; Thu, 10 May 2018 02:33:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87po25lmzs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> In-Reply-To: <87po25lmzs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 09:33:29 +0000 Message-ID: To: Rusty Russell , Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f6cf47056bd6b622" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 09:33:41 -0000 --000000000000f6cf47056bd6b622 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 > --000000000000f6cf47056bd6b622 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I fail to see what's the practical difference between= sending to op_true and giving the coins are fees directly. Perhaps it is a= o obvious to you that you forget to mention it?=C2=A0
If y= ou did I honestlt missed it.

On Wed, 9 May 2018, 01:58 Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev, <<= a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.l= inuxfoundation.org> wrote:
H= i all,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The largest problem we are having today with th= e lightning
protocol is trying to predict future fees.=C2=A0 Eltoo solves this elegantl= y,
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.=C2=A0 Are there any reasons not to suggest such a policy
change?

Thanks!
Rusty.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000f6cf47056bd6b622--