public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32@gmail.com>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 22:06:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAO3Pvs_ix-0xTg_Jqe5secqocZHz3y3r2eRuEftDZqy8OxTNDQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F8C553EE-9AF5-4348-90B7-3EC55FC46B4C@xbt.hk>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2695 bytes --]

> 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.

If one has a "root" commitment with other nested descendent
multi-transaction contracts, then changing the txid of the root commitment
will invalidated all the nested multi tx contracts. In our specific case, we
have pre-signed 2-stage HTLC transaction which rely on a stable txid. As a
result, we can't use the ANYONECANPAY approach atm.

> 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.

Agreed, see the recent proposal to introduce SIGHASH_NOINPUT as a new
sighash type. IMO it presents an opportunity to introduce more flexible fine
grained sighash inclusion control.

-- Laolu


On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.
>
>
>
> > On 9 May 2018, at 7:57 AM, 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3760 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-05-09 22:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-08 23:57 [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard? Rusty Russell
2018-05-09  0:24 ` Olaoluwa Osuntokun
2018-05-09  3:02   ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-10  2:08   ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-09 17:56 ` Johnson Lau
2018-05-09 19:27   ` Peter Todd
2018-05-09 20:19     ` Johnson Lau
2018-05-09 20:59       ` Peter Todd
2018-05-09 22:06   ` Olaoluwa Osuntokun [this message]
2018-05-10  2:06   ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-10  2:27 ` Luke Dashjr
2018-05-10  3:07   ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-15  1:22   ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-17  2:44   ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-17 10:28     ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-17 17:35       ` Christian Decker
2018-05-17 20:06     ` Jim Posen
2018-05-21  3:44       ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-21  3:56         ` Peter Todd
2018-05-30  2:47           ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-31  2:47             ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-21 14:20         ` Russell O'Connor
2018-05-10  9:33 ` Jorge Timón
2018-05-10  9:33   ` Jorge Timón
2018-05-10  9:43   ` Luke Dashjr
2018-05-11  2:44     ` ZmnSCPxj

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAO3Pvs_ix-0xTg_Jqe5secqocZHz3y3r2eRuEftDZqy8OxTNDQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=laolu32@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jl2012@xbt.hk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox