On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 04:19:31AM +0800, Johnson Lau wrote: > > > > On 10 May 2018, at 3:27 AM, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 01:56:46AM +0800, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev 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. > > > > I don't think that will work, as a zero-fee tx won't get relayed even with > > CPFP, due to the fact that we haven't yet implemented package-based tx > > relaying. > > > > -- > > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > > My only concern is UTXO pollution. There could be a “CPFP anchor” softfork > that outputs with empty scriptPubKey and 0 value are spendable only in the > same block. If not spent immediately, they become invalid and are removed > from UTXO. But I still think the best solution is a more flexible SIGHASH > system, which doesn’t need CPFP at all.
I don't see any reason why UTXO pollution would be a special concern so long as those outputs are subject to the same dust rules as any other output is. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev