Damus
Rusty Russell · 64w
The problem with CTV is fees. When you look at most designs using CTV, they need *another* tx, and an anchor output, so they can pay fees. What they really want is "this tx, plus an input and optiona...
Rusty Russell profile picture
There is, potentially, a cool trick which could help though! Jeremy proposed a kind of "neighbor fee" tx which would pay the fees for the immediately-preceding tx in a block (which, annoyingly, I can't find now! Anyone?). You really want this to stack (so it's probably better as a forward, rather than backward bit) and I don't think there's any code, but it makes CTV a more obviously optimal choice for simple covenants, AFAICT.
6❤️2
Rearden 🥪🤖🍴🛩 · 64w
concept is sponsors. hrdnh and jeremy have talked about it a good bit. can be very efficient.
nostrich · 64w
https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAD5xwhi6+Q-UX2xVnD4TE9uEbe-omQ748tpJJpYdrMNnG6D5vA@mail.gmail.com/
Peter Todd · 64w
Neighbor transactions can't be implemented as a mere bit. They have to commit to the transactions they're paying for cryptographically or miners would be able to manipulate them. Neighbor transactions could be more efficient by committing to multiple transactions at once though, eg "hash the next N...
schmidty · 64w
https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/fee-sponsorship/