You'd send 0 satoshis to OP_TRUE, creating a UTXO. Then you spend that 0-value UTXO in another transaction with a normal fee. The idea is that to get the latter fee, the miner needs to confirm the original tranaction with the 0-value OP_TRUE.
(Aside, in case it wasn't clear on my previous email, the template-script idea would not make it *mandatory* to spend in the same block, but that the UTXO would merely cease to be valid *after* that block. So the 0-value output does not take up a UTXO db entry when left unused.) On Thursday 10 May 2018 09:33:29 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I fail to see what's the practical difference between sending to op_true > and giving the coins are fees directly. Perhaps it is ao obvious to you > that you forget to mention it? > If you did I honestlt missed it. > > On Wed, 9 May 2018, 01:58 Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev, < > > firstname.lastname@example.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 > > email@example.com > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev