Nostr Web Client

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.

Peter Todd 1y ago

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 txids".

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Peter Todd 1y ago

And in fairness, they could use a special hashing mode so at least the signature is used for both commitments without an additional N byte hash. But that is getting complex.

Rusty Russell 1y ago

Reverse it, it's still one bit for multiple transactions. "The next tx is committing to me".

Peter Todd 1y ago

Doesn't change anything. The transaction still needs to commit securely.

Rusty Russell 1y ago

Sorry, I was assuming that we also changed signature semantics to commit to the prior txids. New tapscript, or new sig opcode.