<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3l</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3l</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2018-05-17&#xA;📝 Original message:Good morning Rusty and list,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Your zero-val-OP_TRUE-can&#39;t-be-spent-after-same-block SF is interesting,&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; but if we want a SF just give us SIGHASH_NOINPUT and we&#39;ll not need this&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; at all (though others still might).&#xA;&#xA;We might still want this in general in Lightning; for instance we could make every funding transaction include such an output.  If it turns out, our initial feerate estimate for the funding transaction is low, we can use the `OP_TRUE` for fee-bumping.  This is a win for Lightning since the funding transaction ID remains the same (even in Decker-Russell-Osuntokun, the trigger transaction is signed with `SIGHASH_ALL`, and refers to a fixed funding transaction ID).&#xA;&#xA;Without the `OP_TRUE`-for-fee-bump, we would have to pretend to open a new different channel and RBF the old funding transaction with a new higher-feerate funding transaction, then keep track of which one gets confirmed deeply (there is a race where a miner discovers a block using the older funding transaction before our broadcast of the new funding transaction reaches it).&#xA;&#xA;(we could also feebump using the change output of the funding transaction, but such a change output might not exist for all funding transactions.)&#xA;&#xA;Regards,&#xA;ZmnSCPxj</html></oembed>