1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
|
Return-Path: <laolu32@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C28CCD8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 9 May 2018 22:06:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80BC9680
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 9 May 2018 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id a137-v6so25061733wme.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 09 May 2018 15:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=PrL8BiJKSKB+C1fq1/oNx/1zp6JXRpHFPPq4c4bmjT4=;
b=UQKTb+FmDImj9dU4yjPoUopw8bVz2T8+oKdj22SfBgdDeQ0w8ck0TdZkvZdmfWlIKN
ces6yHiQ5Thqk2Y2onJrniShnulkRbnYyMSFGLzgvuvq07UqjOyfVhw2pA+rqZA420dY
cDO9S2d8Pr5b/7BpnKCAIZY7DD3HaWIHUJU3KQIZuYx90Oyd+5zS9iPoFiRV+RmdHBS/
/6XlQ+QJgOmPcryd1JRg0KWnEkmqalHE5udvt07T7kcrJNT8rCzUFXQlsqvxu0dN1Gqo
bqfPrxrRkuWzyu1H30PTIo8NIVDkLzTGCL4gTA965dvhdEkAZ7bhFmDAouR9ARyN7gyL
ZuHA==
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:cc;
bh=PrL8BiJKSKB+C1fq1/oNx/1zp6JXRpHFPPq4c4bmjT4=;
b=ZYL9/8zu3/VYwl2Erh1b943BAa04sHLza9vekECDwlcbnKDscjTwiPTzen9R/jAVpk
NbCcy6KgbW2OPvAFA69VgskjPYaSnbxDj1Gx18eW59XcKiojatiOcTM5CkG+yvMTNFUg
VJzpogJjEG0pbBUdU1GfoZG9+LGGUED4Fe7nbXZo5advWCKjtjjJyONzfGcELxEmu2or
fvBrNNb5aLZ9cSuRG1DOR7XdjJ7lz6fMo4mSzTHnfBITmy9haxKvVC+R6qRu0OkjDrQG
m14sQujsAWmak4ML7s7Gf8o9K80nYGjiwUGuBbK2uNX4tuCAY8Wm8tiWkLP9grVl1489
1jng==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCjyzzgfbP0vZFs07D3QbeJuuPhqPEtQzKUv8E40lbwUtD9+i8u
/rBEGhA2gev/fo0ZWKx08SrSGQAsjKFtLcWggW8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrr36BZnWW+SSOumaF/OJOuj+BFF698uwIUkvS6VPQl8O0XsamI16yjbAAyEDXEjuhLmEdLGYMc8MlUNEb5VZA=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c2d0:: with SMTP id
m16-v6mr63140241edp.171.1525903574094;
Wed, 09 May 2018 15:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87po25lmzs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<F8C553EE-9AF5-4348-90B7-3EC55FC46B4C@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <F8C553EE-9AF5-4348-90B7-3EC55FC46B4C@xbt.hk>
From: Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 22:06:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CAO3Pvs_ix-0xTg_Jqe5secqocZHz3y3r2eRuEftDZqy8OxTNDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007ed57f056bcd1c7a"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
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 <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: Wed, 09 May 2018 22:06:16 -0000
--0000000000007ed57f056bcd1c7a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 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=E2=80=99t need to ask for any protocol chan=
ge.
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, w=
e
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 fin=
e
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 =E2=80=9C0 fee tx with exactly one OP_TRUE output=E2=80=
=9D standard, but
> nothing else. This makes sure CPFP will always be needed, so the OP_TRUE
> output won=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t need to ask for any protocol chan=
ge.
>
> 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
>
--0000000000007ed57f056bcd1c7a
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>> Instead, would you consider to use ANYONECANPAY =
to sign the tx, so it is</div><div>> possible add more inputs for fees? =
The total tx size is bigger than the</div><div>> OP_TRUE approach, but y=
ou don=E2=80=99t need to ask for any protocol change.</div><div><br></div><=
div>If one has a "root" commitment with other nested descendent</=
div><div>multi-transaction contracts, then changing the txid of the root co=
mmitment</div><div>will invalidated all the nested multi tx contracts. In o=
ur specific case, we</div><div>have pre-signed 2-stage HTLC transaction whi=
ch rely on a stable txid. As a</div><div>result, we can't use the ANYON=
ECANPAY approach atm.</div><div><br></div><div>> In long-term, I think t=
he right way is to have a more flexible SIGHASH</div><div>> system to al=
low people to add more inputs and outputs easily.</div><div><br></div><div>=
Agreed, see the recent proposal to introduce SIGHASH_NOINPUT as a new</div>=
<div>sighash type. IMO it presents an opportunity to introduce more flexibl=
e fine</div><div>grained sighash inclusion control.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>-- Laolu</div><div><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"l=
tr">On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev <<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">You sho=
uld make a =E2=80=9C0 fee tx with exactly one OP_TRUE output=E2=80=9D stand=
ard, but nothing else. This makes sure CPFP will always be needed, so the O=
P_TRUE output won=E2=80=99t pollute the UTXO set<br>
<br>
Instead, would you consider to use ANYONECANPAY to sign the tx, so it is po=
ssible add more inputs for fees? The total tx size is bigger than the OP_TR=
UE approach, but you don=E2=80=99t need to ask for any protocol change.<br>
<br>
In long-term, I think the right way is to have a more flexible SIGHASH syst=
em to allow people to add more inputs and outputs easily.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On 9 May 2018, at 7:57 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Hi all,<br>
> <br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The largest problem we are having today wit=
h the lightning<br>
> protocol is trying to predict future fees.=C2=A0 Eltoo solves this ele=
gantly,<br>
> but meanwhile we would like to include a 546 satoshi OP_TRUE output in=
<br>
> commitment transactions so that we use minimal fees and then use CPFP<=
br>
> (which can't be done at the moment due to CSV delays on outputs).<=
br>
> <br>
> Unfortunately, we'd have to P2SH it at the moment as a raw 'OP=
_TRUE' is<br>
> non-standard.=C2=A0 Are there any reasons not to suggest such a policy=
<br>
> change?<br>
> <br>
> Thanks!<br>
> Rusty.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
--0000000000007ed57f056bcd1c7a--
|
