<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub19helcfnqgk2jrwzjex2aflq6jwfc8zd9uzzkwlgwhve7lykv23mq5zkvn4</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub19helcfnqgk2jrwzjex2aflq6jwfc8zd9uzzkwlgwhve7lykv23mq5zkvn4</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2018-05-08&#xA;📝 Original message:What are the downsides of just using p2wsh? This route can be rolled out&#xA;immediately, while policy changes are pretty &#34;fuzzy&#34; and would require a&#xA;near uniform rollout in order to ensure wide propagation of the commitment&#xA;transactions.&#xA;&#xA;On Tue, May 8, 2018, 4:58 PM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev &lt;&#xA;bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Hi all,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;         The largest problem we are having today with the lightning&#xA;&gt; protocol is trying to predict future fees.  Eltoo solves this elegantly,&#xA;&gt; but meanwhile we would like to include a 546 satoshi OP_TRUE output in&#xA;&gt; commitment transactions so that we use minimal fees and then use CPFP&#xA;&gt; (which can&#39;t be done at the moment due to CSV delays on outputs).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Unfortunately, we&#39;d have to P2SH it at the moment as a raw &#39;OP_TRUE&#39; is&#xA;&gt; non-standard.  Are there any reasons not to suggest such a policy&#xA;&gt; change?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Thanks!&#xA;&gt; Rusty.&#xA;&gt; _______________________________________________&#xA;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list&#xA;&gt; bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org&#xA;&gt; https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev&#xA;&gt;&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180509/63e18795/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>